On January 3, 2002, Science
Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO) and Intelligent Design network, inc.
posted a web site that solicited comments on proposed Modifications to
the Tenth Grade Life Sciences Section of a published draft of Ohio Science
Academic Content Standards.

This report reflects comments
received prior to 12:30 am, January 31, 2002.

The Draft Science Standards
posted by the Ohio Department of Education only reflect science indicators
and omitted to include other substantive provisions of the Draft Standards.
In particular, the posted draft made available to the public and SEAO
did not include the proposed definition of "science."

An early draft of the Front
Matter to the new Standards (June 22, 2001) used a traditional definition
of science, which could include the possibility of design as an explanation
for phenomena in nature: "Science is an active
process of investigating, learning, and thinking about the natural world." However,
in an oral presentation made by the Ohio Department of Education (January
13, 2002), a naturalistic (materialistic) definition was used: "Science
is a method of explaining the natural world using natural processes."

At this point, we do not know
which definition of science is intended for use in the Standards. Thus
the respondents to the SEAO/IDnet poll and Ohioans have not had the opportunity
to comment on this critically important definition. The definition is
important because it goes to the very heart of the controversy. By limiting
explanations to only those which are consistent with a natural process,
the definition seeks to incorporate Methodological Naturalism into the
standards as a mechanism to censor all competing origins hypotheses.

The proposed Modifications and
an "OVERVIEW" are appended to this
report. Essentially the Modifications seek to have origins science in
Ohio taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic or philosophic
bias or assumption. Elimination of an irrebuttable naturalistic assumption
permits objective consideration of all the evidence bearing on the most
important question of where we come from. It permits this historical
area of science to be conducted per the scientific method where scientists
seek to rule out competing hypotheses based on scientific investigation,
observation and analysis rather than by assumption. Eliminating the naturalistic
assumption permits "balanced" treatment of the evidence and
treats Darwinian evolution as a hypothesis or "theory" rather
than as a "fact."

The SEAO/IDnet Poll collected
309 usable comments. Comments that were duplicative, incomplete and in
some cases non-responsive were discarded. Non-responsive comments from
obviously fictitious respondents such as "Charles Darwin," "Barry
Headinground" and the like were discarded .

The Poll sought the educational
level and occupation of the respondent, an opportunity to "Agree" or "Disagree" with
the proposed Modifications, and a comment form that permitted lengthy
comments. The entirety of all comments are included in this report. None
have been edited for punctuation or content. The report shows the raw
data as our data base received it. We encourage your review of the written
comments. In many respects, they are much more meaningful and informative
than the raw data.

The names of respondents are
shown where they have specifically granted permission to publicly associate
their name with their comments. Where permission has been specifically
refused or where the response is silent on the issue of permission, we
have omitted the name and used the phrase "No Permission" to
indicate the desired anonymity.

Of the 309 responses, 243 (79%)
specifically "Agree" with the Modifications and 66 (21%) "Disagreed." However,
among those who "disagreed" were 28 (9%) who provided comments
that find fault with the proposed Ohio Standards and that essentially
indicate concurrence with the theme of "objective origins science." These
respondents are identified in the tables below under the caption "Disagree,
but For Obj OS." The detailed listings under "Poll Results" also
identify those in this category by the following statement that appears
below their name: "Respondent's comments have been construed for
report purposes as being for objective origins science." Thus, the
total of those who Agree and who appear to favor objective origins science
is 271 (88%).

The respondents as a group represent
a high level of education, professional experience and expertise. A total
of 83 respondents hold doctoral degrees, 78 (94%) of whom reflect agreement
with the notion of objective origins science. The poll also shows that
71, or about 84% of those respondents that are or have been engaged in
biological sciences favor objective origins science and that 91% of those
engaged in teaching or education are of the same mind.

Teaching origins science also
involves critical legal issues. All of the eight lawyers responding,
including two professors of law, agreed with the modifications. None
were opposed.

Ohio residents comprise 190
or 61% of the respondents. The others, which include many highly credentialed
scientists, reside all over the world. This input is consistent with
the considerable outside assistance received by the Department of Education.

A persistent complaint against
design theory and objective origins science is that no "real scientist" or
professional agrees with it. The comments show the hollowness of this
claim. To underscore its inadequacy we have taken the liberty to list
alphabetically all of those who hold doctoral degrees at the beginning
of the list. This will enable readers who tend to look only at the beginning
of a long list to note the large number of well-credentialed respondents
that favor objective origins science."

The following comments by two
scientists who "agree" with the proposed modifications, one
a member of the National Academy of Science, summarize very well the
consensus reflected in the report:

"I am a member of NAS,
Chemistry Section. I have examined carefully the evidence on both sides
of this debate and my conclusion [for the Modifications] is based solely
on scientific considerations, no religious criteria." ["Philip
Skell, PhD, Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Agree"].

********

"It is crucial that students
understand 1) the important distinction between an empirical science
and an historical science, and 2) that the latter is always strongly
influenced by non-scientific world view issues, e.g. materialism, theism,
etc. Large questions like "Where did we come from" necessarily
raise deep philosophical and religious issues. It is important that
the state not become an exponent of one view over others. ["David
Keller, PhD, Biophysical Chemistry, Professor, Agree."]

"I
am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This report was accompanied
by the results of another poll about media treatment of Darwinian evolution.
The Zogby Poll shows that over 80% of the public favor objective origins
science such that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's
theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for
it, but also the scientific evidence against it."

Early last year 91 U.S. Senators
voted for a provision (the Santorum Amendment) in the federal education
bill (H.B.1) that encourages the development of curriculum that will
help students think critically, "understand the full range of scientific
views that exist regarding the origins of life, and understand why origins
science may generate controversy." This provision received favorable
mention in the report of the House and Senate Conferees who recommended
passage of the education act. The principal embodied in the Santorum
Amendment is reflected in the Modifications and is included in recently
introduced legislation in the Ohio Legislature, H.B. 481.

The following tables summarize
in more detail the results of this poll:

All Respondents

Group

Total

Agree

Disagree

Disagree,
but
For Objective OS

Total
ForObjective OS

All
Respondents

309

243

38

28

271

Percentages

79%

12%

9%

88%

Level of
Educationof Respondents

Group

Total

Agree

Disagree

Disagree,
but
For Objective OS

Total
ForObjective OS

Doctoral
Degrees

83

75

5

3

78 (94%)

Master's
Degrees

56

48

6

2

50 (89%)

Bachelor's
Degrees

114

87

13

14

101 (89%)

Other

56

33

14

9

42 (75%)

Totals

309

243

38

28

271 (88%)

Respondents Engaged
in Biological and Life Sciences

Group

Total

Agree

Disagree

Disagree,
but
For Objective OS

Total
ForObjective OS

Doctoral
Degrees

44

38

5

1

39 (89%)

Master's
Degrees

15

10

5

0

10 (67%)

Bachelor's
Degrees

21

14

3

4

18 (86%)

Other

5

3

1

1

4 (80%)

Totals

85

65

14

6

71 (84%)

Respondents Engaged
in Teaching and Education

Group

Total

Agree

Disagree

Disagree,
but
For Objective OS

Total
ForObjective OS

Doctoral
Degrees

48

42

3

3

45 (94%)

Master's
Degrees

12

10

2

0

10 (84%)

Bachelor's
Degrees

19

17

2

0

17 (89%)

Other

1

1

0

0

1 (100%)

Totals

80

70

7

3

73 (91%)

Respondents Engaged in Practicing or Teaching Law

Group

Total

Agree

Disagree

Disagree,
but
For Objective OS

Total
ForObjective OS

All
Lawyers

8

8

0

0

8 (100%)

We wish to thank all of those
who took the time to comment on the Modifications.

If notions of how things came
into begin comes into science classes, then it is incumbent on the teacher
to discuss the philosophical issues that are brought out by the students
and give them equal and serious treatment. In physics, the notion of
a Big Bang plays hardly any role in 99.99% of the achievements of physics
that have given rise to all the technological advances we now enjoy.
I believe the same is true in the biological sciences and its technological
applications in medicine, genetics, etc. with regard to evolution. Evolutionary
theory ought to be treated as a working assumption and not a philosophical
position that goes beyond science. Of course, whenever philosophical
views are discusses then it ought to be an open question and all ought
to contribute equally. I do not understand the fear historical biologists
have that such discussions would undermine the truly scientific issues
involved. As a physics professor any student can raise any issue in my
class about the assumptions that physicists make in order to carry on
the study of nature. Biologist ought to similarly have no fears that
open discussions of the assumptions being made by them will undermine
the science that they are trying to teach. If questions of origins are
part of the curriculum, then views held by the community ought to similarly
be part of the curriculum. Note that biologists say that they "believe
in evolution," which makes it quite clear that it is a matter of
faith rather than science.

I would add that one could justify
these changes (especially the inclusion of Intelligent Design) by appealing
to the importance of exposing students to reputable scholarship that
critiques the materialist assumptions behind naturalistic evolution.
For in U.S. Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court maintains
that its holding does "not imply that the legislature could never
require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be
taught." The Court asserts that "teaching a variety of scientific
theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly
done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of
science instruction." In addition, the Court points out, with apparent
approval, that the unconstitutional Balanced-Treatment Act was unnecessary
because the state of Louisiana already did not prohibit teachers from
introducing students to alternative points of view.

When applied to these suggested
modifications, the Edwards test in fact justifies them. For naturalistic
evolution provides an answer to the very same question Intelligent Design
provides an answer: What is the origin of apparent design in biological
organisms and/or other aspects of the natural universe? Evolution answers
the question by appealing to the forces of unguided matter, the latter
to intelligent agency. Same question, different answers.

Given the history of the teaching
of origins in public schools, it is understandable why someone may see
these modifications as being in line with statutes already struck down
by the Supreme Court and other federal courts. But that would not be
a correct reading of those cases. What animated the courts, and what
they found unconstitutional, were the transparent use of the Book of
Genesis in the influence and content of the statutes. This is not the
case here. In fact, the authors of the modifications raise just the sort
of profound and interesting philosophical and scientific questions that
I believe the courts thought were essential to a good education. It would
be ironic if these modifications were rejected, for it would mean that
a teacher, if she raised questions about naturalistic evolution on her
own initiative, could be accused and convicted of the Socratic transgression
of encouraging her pupils to think deeply and thoughtfully about the
philosophical implications that flow from the Darwinian paradigm.

These modest changes will serve
to help students think more deeply about the nature of life.

5. Timothy Benadum,
M.D., Chemistry; Medicine, Physician, Agree

I agree with the proposed modifications.
The student should have a clear understanding what is fact and what is
theory. Furthermore the worldview perspective of the theory should be
delineated with its presuppositions to allow greater comprehension and
insight.

6. Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.,
Biology, College Professor (Biology), Agree

We should teach the controversey
and not censor the problems with Darwinism.

I wonder why you waste your
time working to promote ignorance. It is clear from your site that your
group does not understand, or more likely, refuses to understand, the
most basic ideas about how science works, and what fact and theory are.
None of you propose any scientific way in which design can be studied,
because it is not possible to do so. Your activities serve no scientific,
educational, religious, or other worthwhile aims. All you are doing is
attempting to undermine public understanding and education, for your
own reasons, which I simply can't fathom. Intelligent design theory is
associated with "creationism" and religion, but I have yet
to find the religion that upholds the ideal that ignorance and lack of
understanding are the way to God or other enlightenment.

I expect it's hopeless, but
I nevertheless urge you to look deep into your souls and ask yourselves,
honestly: Why am I involved in this project? What good does it do? Do
I really understand what I'm talking about, or am I allowing myself to
be persuaded by the glib words of other people, whose agendas I may or
may not agree with?

Please, open your minds and
learn. Don't close off the world for yourselves and for others.

8. No Permission, PhD,
Engineering, Engineer, Agree

I think a more balanced curriculum
should be presented to students on the topic of the origins of life.
There are many theories on this topic. One of the important aspects of
education is to develop students critical thinking skills. Present the
multiple theories on the origins of life and let the students decide
for themselves. Therefore, I support the proposed modifications to include
the theory for intelligent design.

The theory of evolution, as
it is presently taught, is fraught with both scientific and philospohical
problems. Intelligent design continues to provide a thoughtful response
to these issues and deserves to be included in the life science curriculum.

I am less concerned that Intelligent
Design be proposed as an alternate theory, than I am that the data related
to macroevolution be fairly presented. As it is, neither students nor
teachers are not encouraged to critically evaluate the material because
portions of it are unfairly presented.

Frequently, contradictory data
is presented as if part of a mutually supporting field of information
(e.g. the early atmosphere is thought to have consisted of gases not
contained in the Miller/Urey experimental flask yet the Miller/Urey experiment
is constantly put forward as evidence for organic molecule formation
in just such a non-existant early atmosphere).

Frequently, no distinction is
made between the hypotheses generated from forensic investigations and
those generated from bench science (e.g. in one text the authors state
that denying all life derives from natural processes is equivalent to
denying electricity and gravity. Yet, the conclusions derived from forensic
sciences ought to be regarded as more tentative than the that derived
from more directly empirical sciences.

Finally, nearly all texts conflate
data with the conclusions naturalists draw from that data without distinguishing
between data and conclusion (e.g. the so-called evolutionary tree illustrations
where the actual data, contemporary and extinct species, are weighted
the same as the lines naturalists draw between them).

15. Jack Cashill, Ph.D.,
American Studies, Writer, Agree

16. Charles Casteel,
M.D., Medicine, Urologist, Agree

17. Arthur Chadwick,
Ph.D., Molecular Biology, Professor, Agree

Science thrives on attitudes
of openness among its practitioners.Denying legitimate ideas about a
subject as difficult to encompass in science as origins, is dogmatism
at its worst.

Good science cannot afford dogmatism,
and openness has always served the highest interests of science.

Please do not be responsible
for excluding by arbitrary actions, considerations of origins other than
strict Darwinian evolution.

In the mind of a third grader,
flowers and insects didn't "just happen".

Putting into their hands textbooks
that contradict that logic sounds like a recipe for turning students
away from careers in science to me.

Darwinism has become an inviolable
principle of modern science. Critical scrutiny of it is no longer tolerated
and its proponenets exercise monopolistic control over all levels of
the United States' educational system. That monopoly needs to be broken
up, not least because it turns education into indoctrination. Alternatives
and critiques of Darwinian evolutionary theory are currently on the table
and being vigorously discussed at the highest levels of the academy.
To teach only Darwinism is to give a false impression to students, giving
them the sense that no disagreement exists concerning a theory (Darwinism)
that remains highly controversial.

22. Paul Dennis, Doctor
of Optometry, Optometrist, Agree

Science, of all disciplines,
should be taught and understood with and by objective, unbiased, honest
assessment of possible viewpoints. Theories should be presented as such
with accompanying bodies of evidence. In the area of life origins, it
is impossible (and not intellectually honest) to present ANY viewpoint
dogmatically as proven fact, or scientific "law". All viewpoints
should be discussed in this light, so students can form their own views
based on the evidence available, not on narrow, biased views of the instructor.
Hesitance to be objective in this area is a sad commentary on the education
establishment, and the proposed modifications to Science Standards appear
to me to be a solid step in the right direction.

The modifications to the Science
Standards represent a more scientifically accurate and balanced approach
to teaching about origins. It admits limitations to scientific knowledge
in a postive way that is likely to promote a better understanding of
the scientific method. Moreover, it is sensitive to students of faith
while teaching them about evolution.

Evolutionary theory is supported
by countless thousands of publications in peer reviewed journals. When
any alternative theory reaches that standard, I hope it, too, will be
taught in public school. As of today, there is not a single article that
discusses, let alone supports "intelligent design theory" in
the scientific literature.

26. Bruce Evans, Ph.D.,
Biology, College Biology Professor, Agree

One of the major problems that
we must address in our pedagogy in public schools is the strict adherence
to naturalism which pervades the curriculum. The proposed modifications
would allow for an honest, open presentation and discussion of ideas
that are scientific in nature but do not agree with strict neo-Darwinian
principles. While it is true that most scientists believe that biological
evolution has taken place, their belief does not make these tenets true
or untrue. When we tell students that science is about allowing a free
discussion of alternative scientific hypotheses and then we censor the
politically incorrect hypotheses, we are being self-contradictory and
deceptive in our teachings. We must allow the discussion of intelligent
design ideas, whether they turn out to be right or wrong.

It is important for students
to be able to differentiate between the observations or facts of science
and the interpretations of those facts. Most of the initial statements
give an explicit or implicit interpretation to the observations.

When interpretations of observations
are made the assumptions that inevitably underly them should be explained.
Then the student will be able to understand how two rational people can
come to differnt interpretations of the facts. Science does not exist
in a vaccume void of philosophical or religious beliefs.

The education system can do
the next generations a great service by helping them to differentiate
the facts from beliefs. The proposed changes help to accomplish this
end.

Science education should include
the teaching of all relevant and reasonable theories about the origin
of life

29. James Graham, JD,
Law, Lawyer, Agree

Having read Darwin, Gould, Dawkins,
Crick, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others it is clear to me that Darwinian
evolution does not provide a convincing answer to the important questions
of the origin of life or the origin of the human race. The science curriculum
in public schools should address these issues honestly and include discussion
of the limitations and inadequacies of the various theories of origins
without elevating any of them to the level of orthodoxy. Science has
not provided a conclusive (or even compelling)answer to the question
of the origin of life and any official science curriculum that says Darwinian
evolution is the answer to this fundamentally important question is dishonest,
infringes academic freedom and perhaps the First Amndment as well.

30. Doug Hansen,
JD, Law, Attorney, Agree

The very future of science as
a worthy pursuit is dependent upon a perception that science is an endeavor
that is focused, first and foremost upon finding TRUTH. In order to be
credible over the long haul, Science must be seen as the champion of
following the empirical EVIDENCE WHEREVER IT LEADS, not forcing the evidence
into a fixed, preconceived frame. If scientists and science teachers
are seen as dogmatists, covering up, censoring or glossing over inconvenient
inconsistencies, flaws, anomalies or controversies in the evidence, the
advancement of science will inevitably suffer.

The suggested Modifications
are most assuredly improvements in the text. They are improvements because
they improve the accuracy and integrity of the text. They improve the
quality and integrity of the text by eliminating (or fully disclosing)
subtly hidden but unproven (and un-provable) crucial assumptions. They
improve the quality and integrity of the text by stating tentatively
those things that can only be inferred but which inherently cannot be
verified by scientific testing and observation. They improve the quality
and integrity of the text by directly teaching students about the nature,
limitations and philosophy of science, especially as scientific inquiry
relates to historical phenomena. They improve the quality and integrity
of the text by insisting upon a clear and precise definitions of crucial
terms, especially the term evolution itself, which when used without
a clear and precise definition leads to needless misunderstandings, pointless
debate and even deliberate obfuscation. The Modifications will promote
improvement in the quality and integrity of science teaching itself by
encouraging critical thinking about scientific endeavors.

In short, it has hard to imagine
why these Modifications are controversial at all. We live in a society
that values the "marketplace of ideas" and the lessons that
can be learned by observing the competition among ideas in that marketplace.
Science has always valued the competition among various "schools
of thought." In most matters, science has sought to be non-dogmatic;
to hold all of its conclusions as tentative. There is no reason why origins
science should be held to a lesser standard. To the contrary, given the
inherent and obvious impact of origins science upon religious thought,
and given the guarantees of the First Amendment, there is every reason
why government sponsored teaching of origins science should be held to
a greater standard of precision, accuracy, full disclosure, honesty and
open self-criticism than any other area of science teaching.

It is critically important that
the presentation of theories of life's origins and development be tested
against each other for the best fit. To allow presentation of only one
theory and to assume that no other theory could be possible is inappropriate
for public education.

32. David Hauge, JD,
Law, Attorney, Agree

It is my belief that the concept
of Intelligent Design, per se, should be part of any course which discusses
the theory of evolution. I believe that Intelligent Design clearly qualifies
as science (This would not include so called Biblical creation). The
concept of Intelligent Design is getting more and more legitimate play
in the scientific community, but yet, continues to be unfairly excluded
from mainstream discussion in the education system. It is only a matter
of time before Intelligent Design moves to the forfront on its own merrits.
Why not stop the artificial exclusion of Intelligent Design here in Ohio
by voting for these modifications.

33. Douglas Hausknecht,
PhD, Marketing, Professor, Agree

The debate recalls the Behavioristic
versus Cognitive revolution of paradigms in Psychology. At present, cognitive
orientations dominate, but the behavioral approach is taught as a contrasting
opinion with defenders and evidence of its own. If intelligent design
were taught as a similar "opposition view," the inclusion would
satisfy the need to be fair and to let students choose their own preferred
paradigm.

34. Scott Haynes, JD,
Law, Attorney, Agree

As an attorney, I am compelled
to discover and review evidence. If evidence can support multiple theories,
let all of the theories into the debate and let each person make his
or her own informed decision based upon the evidence.

I want students to have a broader
view of Biological origins than the dominant view usually given in biotextbooks.
Modern information theory shows that the huge amount of information in
biological systems cannot come from a non-intelligent source.

Origins science is still a wide
open field, none of the proposed solutions has worked out. It would be
arbitrary in the extreme to exclude the likelihood that an intelligent
designer provided the huge amounts of information required to produce
the first cell. Students should be taught to consider all options, not
be spoonfed an arbitrary viewpoint.

I am highly concerned that the
Darwinian approach to creation is adopted as the only explanation for
creation. While there are many educated authorities who accept this view,
there are also a substantial number of authorities who recognize the
shortcomings in the theory of evolution. One of the underlying tenets
of science is that inquiry and discussion continues until irrefutable
evidence exists to support one particular explanation. This is not the
case with the theory of evolution as considerable gaps remain in its
explanation for the origins of humans.

42. David Keller, PhD,
Biophysical Chemistry, Professor, Agree

It is crucial that students
understand 1) the important distinction between an empirical science
and an historical science, and 2) that the latter is always strongly
influenced by non-scientific worldview issues, e.g. materialism, theism,
etc. Large questions like "Where did we come from" necessarily
raise deep philosophical and religious issues. It is important that the
state not become an exponent of one view over others.

43. No Permission, PhD,
Philosophy, Professor of Philosophy, Agree

44. Jeffrey Koperski,
PhD, Philosophy, University Professor, Agree

Intelligent Design should be
taught as one of several contemporary positions critical of orthodox
neo-Darwinism. These might also include self-organization/complexity
theory, saltationism, and punctuated equilibrium.

It is clearly necessary to present
alternative theories of origins in Ohio classrooms. The proposed standards
Modifications seem almost too gentle, considering the problems with macroevolution
-- rarely admitted in public for political and philosophical reasons.

It is clear that macroevolution
is driven by an unsubstantiated, naturalistic philosophy that assumes
the universe MUST be a closed system of material causes and effects,
with no possible outside influence. Therefore, in that view, the human
eye, machine-like proteins, and other seemingly designed entities MUST
only have the appearance of design. They MUST have evolved, no matter
how small the odds.

Therefore, students MUST not
hear that examples of roughly all animal phyla existing today (and more)
first appear suddenly in Cambrian fossils, representing a period as short
as 2 to 3 million years -- too brief for macroevolution. Students MUST
not realize that this "Cambrian explosion" inverts the evolutionary
tree -- phyla first, diversity of species later. They MUST not know that
key, still-published textbook "evidences" for abiogenesis and
macroevolution are false or misleading, such as: 1950s experiments which
made amino acids from gases that scientists now know misrepresent earth's
early atmosphere; drawings that fake embryo commonality across multiple
species; photographs that supposedly show adaptation of moths to tree
trunks, though the moths don't normally land there and were pasted on.

Physicist Paul Davies' comments
in a recent book are enlightening: "When I set out to write this
book I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery
of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field,
I am now convinced that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This
gulf is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a
major conceptual lacuna."

Resistance to alternative explanations
of origins is centered in the U.S., enforced by a powerful science elite.
By contrast, the People's Daily, though presumably atheistic, published
the following headline about Cambrian fossils in China: "Chengjiang
Fossils Challenge the Theory of Darwin." A Chinese paleontologist
noted that, " In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government;
in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Hopefully, teachers and students
in Ohio schools can soon criticize the government AND Darwin.

46. Robert Lattimer,
PhD, Chemistry, Research Chemist, Agree

The modifications are great.

47. Garrick Little,
PhD, Chemistry, Senior Scientist, Agree

I agree with the principles
that have been used to justify the modifications to the proposed science
standards. My position is that to claim evolution to be a scientific
fact would at a minimum require a well established mechanism/explanation
both for the origin of the first cell as well as a mechanism that clearly
shows how increasingly complex life could have come into existence. I
find that the field of evolutionary study cannot point to such mechanisms
according to the norms of scientific rigor.

I believe the lack of balance
in instruction leads to inadequate preparation to be usccessful in science.
Presentation of scientific thought ought to include both strengths and
weaknesses, along with alternative explanations, and their strengths
and weaknesses. This approach enables students to gain a better insight
into the purpose and value of science.

The "Intelligent Design" network
is attempting to "stuff the ballot box" with canned modifications
that are bereft of solid science.

51. Scott A. Minnich,
PhD, Microbiology, Associate Professor, Agree

I think the proposed modifications
are consistent with the present body of knowledge. In fact, these modifications
are more reflective of a true scientific position, ie., willing to question
primary assumptions continually with data as it is collected. Accepting
these criteria will foster better science education and is not promoting
some type of fundamentalist infringment into the curriculum.

52. Thomas Morgan, DMA,
Music Performance, Music Professor, Agree

It's time to tell our students
the truth about origins. Let's give them all the information and let
them make a choice based on knowledge. We should teach Darwinism, but
give them the whole story. Stop giving the impression that we can explain
everything by naturalistic processes. Let the students in on Darwinism's
many problems. The ID movement is growing, and this information cannot
be hidden any longer.

Naturalistic evolution has many
problems (information generation, lack of fossil record, irredicible
complexity...). It's time for the scientific elite to loosen their stranglehold
on education and take the risk that some "unfortunate" ideas
may find their way into the science classroom. Nobody wants that, but
to hide behind the idea that there are no problems with evolution, in
the long run, isn't doing our students any good. We must have free inquiry
if we want to continue learning. "ID" meets the criteria of
a scientific paradigm and is being brought to the table for consideration.
Shouldn't our students know that?

54. John Nichols, PhD,
Mathematics, Professor of Mathematics, Agree

I find the modifications to
be well-reasoned and professionally written.

Evolution as defined as random
chemicals forming a single life form and subsequently transforming into
a variety of life forms through DNA random mutations is scientifically
impossible being in violation of the second law of themodynamics, the
laws of probability, and information therory. If evolution is to be presented
to students as an acceptable view of origins then certainly intelligent
design should be taught. In my opinion, in studying the complexity and
efficiency of cellular function, intellignet design is the intelligent
choice. Sincerely, XXXXXXXXX, Ph.D.

57. Deborah Owens-Fink,
PhD, Business, College Professor, Agree

We must make these changes to
assure that our students are critical thinkers for the 21st century .
Intellectual stimulation comes from considering all views. Students will
be more engaged if we teach both Darwinian theory and Intelligent Design.
We can not and should not censure either view

I wonder why the definition
of science is missing from the introductory provision?

59. No Permission, PhD,
Oceanography, Oceanographer, Agree

In general, these revisions
are quite good in that:

(1) they identify and eliminate
much of the dogmatism invoked in the teaching of evolutionary theory;
dogmatism is not science, presenting information in this fashion is counter
to the stated learning goals of the science standards, and needs to be
eliminated.

(2) they identify and eliminate
the use of naturalism to justify theories, especially evolution, in science.
Science should not be based upon naturalism; when it is, it rapidly degenerates
into scientism which is neither good science nor good religion; rather
its just another 'ism' looking for followers and converts.

The Intelligent Design constituency
has failed to produce a substantive, scientific theory regarding the
origins and adaptive nature of life on planet earth. Further, they have
not produced a scientific literature to substantiate their touted theory.
The mere criticism of current evolutionary theory does not substantiate
their position.

The proposed modifications are
very wise, and in fact rather mild. I cannot see how a well-informed
person
could object to them, unless he or she is seeking to teach a naturalistic worldview
in the Ohio public schools.

By the way, I attended Ohio
public schools, in the Beavercreek system, for 8 years, and graduated
there, though I now live elsewhere.

63. Andrew Repp, PhD,
Mathematics, Highschool Teacher, Agree

The proposed modifications seem
self-evident to me. If intelligent design theory can explain observed
pheonomena as well as or better than darwinian evolution--and from what
I've seen, it can--then only hidebound prejudice would advocate its suppression.

I am in favor of standards that
promote the objective teaching of Origins Science. As the US Constitution
dictates, and as the Santorum Amendment counsels, Origins Science should
be taught with viewpoint neutrality with regard to religion or philosophy.
In other words, the State cannot promote one hypothesis while censoring
another in the science classrooms of our public schools, if both hypotheses
are scientific in nature and have impact on religion or worldview. Intelligent
Design Theory is science. To believe otherwise is to be misinformed about
what ID theory actually is. I support the proposed Ohio Science Standards
because they do not allow censorship of anything that qualifies as science.

I support a full and comprehensive
presentation of all sides of the "Orgins" debate. The growing
body of scientific evidince that cannot be explained by the theory of
macroevolution should not be omitted, suppressed or even marginalized
in our schools just because Evolution is the only "naturalistic" theory
for the origin of live on earth. This debate should be an unbiased search
for truth. A unified comprehensive inclusive theory that explains all
the observations made to date and which has great preditability for future
observations is what I define as truth.

While Newtonian mechanics is
valid for most of Nature it cannot explain atomic and subatomic behavior.
In the same way the data collected on life thus far is quite compelling
in its support for Microevolution but not for macroevolution. Very basic
observations like the Cambrian Explosion of life cannot be explained
at all by Macroevolution.

Seems to me we need a whole
new theory to explain the great diversity of Life. Continuing to brain
wash students that Macroevolution is fact we are just suppressing the
creative potential of students and prolonging the introduction of an
entirely new theory.

67. Miguel Rodriguez,
PhD, Chemistry, Biochemistry professor, Agree

I don't consider a good education
that one that teaches as certain what is uncertain. Thus, all possible
explanations of life origins should be part of a biology program.

68. Ariel Roth, PhD,
Zoology, Editor of Journal Origins, Agree

I agree with the modifications

69. Craig Rusbult, PhD,
Curriculum & Instruction, Educator, Agree

This is an explanation of one
reason for my agreement with the proposed modifications:

Science should be open. This
is described very well in the indicator for Grade 10, Scientific Ways
of Knowing #3, which explains that "scientists may disagree about
explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data, or about the
value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response
to criticism, and open communication are integral to the process of science." Based
on my extensive study of science, scientists, and scientific methods,
this description seems very accurate. I encourage you to apply this principle
in the area of evolution education, by encouraging (instead of prohibiting)
the "questioning" and "open communication" that are "integral
to the process of science." Science should be open, not closed.

Quite plainly, the way the standards
were written presupposes the theory of evolution to be fact, when the
only fact about evolution that is indisputable is that it is a band of
suppositions and guesses, rather than a data-driven body of science.
In the guesswork business, one guess is as good as another. Please read
may article in NetWorldDaily.com, January 5, In the Beginning was What?

I have examined carefully the
evidence on both sides of this debate and my conclusion is based solely
on scientific considerations, no religious criteria.

75. Fred Skiff, PhD,
Physics, University Professor, Agree

The modifications promote intellectual
integrity and honesty. The credibiliy of the scientific community will
be damaged if there is a dogmatic attachment to Darwinism. Materialism
did not give birth to science and it should not be confused with science.

76. James Standish,
JD, Law, Lawyer, Agree

It is time that public schools
taught the divergent views about possible explanations for the origins
of life. Presenting macroevolution as a monolithic orthodoxy denies students
the academic openness necessary for them to form their own views on this
much debated issue.

James Standish, JD, MBA

77. No Permission, PhD,
Biology, Agree

As a former teacher of high
school biology and current research scientists I fully support the consideration
of multiple ideas about the origin of life and its diversity. Modifications
to the draft Ohio Academic Content Standards for Science suggested by
Science Excellence for All Ohioans would greatly enhance the science
curriculum in Ohio public schools. This could only result in students
better prepared to meet and understand the complex world in which they
live. More informed graduates will build stronger communities of citizens
equipped to participate in those aspects of public life in which science
impacts development of public policy.

Some general observations. The
current dominant biology framework, neo-Darwinism and its variants, has
lost its plausibility in explaining the issues of major concern. Dissent
and superior explanations are becoming virtually impossible to publish
in research journals.

I must support any educational
amendments which permit one to question, to critique, to evaluate. And
best of all, to simply state like I do, that chance plus selection is
incapable of explaining the vast majority of the truly interesting issues:

- the origin of the genetic
code

- the physical and informational
organisation of cells

- the precise developmental
guidance from fertilized cell to full organism

- the origin of sexual reproduction

- the origin and regulation
of DNA repair mechanisms

- the integration and automatic
self-regulation of thousands of metabolic cellular processes

- the interaction of about 200
kinds of specialized cells into an integrated mammals into whole organisms

- the origin of intelligence,
consciousness and will.

These and many other observations
are not explainable by hand-waving materialist stories being claimed
as "fact".

79. Jonathan Wells,
PhD, Biology, Biologist, Agree

Science is the search for truth,
and it works best when it follows the evidence wherever it leads - even
if it undermines widely held theories such as Darwinian evolution. Accordingly,
science students should be encouraged to consider evidence for and against
Darwin's theory, and they should also be encouraged to evaluate the evidence
for alternative theories such as intelligent design.

80. Terry Weston, MD,
Biology major in college, Physician, Agree

To suggest that Darwin's "Theory" is
the foundation for instruction in life's origin is to ignore the basis
of scientific hypothesis and theory itself. It should be required to
balance this unscientific approach to life's origins with other explanations
such as intelligent design in order to teach science students to think
critically of such processes.

The perspective that only biological
macro-evolution should be taught in Ohio's public schools is intellectually
dishonest. An increasing number of scientists and thinkers believe that
other theories should be taught because much of the scientific data does
not support the theory of macro-evolution. It is ridiculous for science
teachers to present macro-evolution as if it has been proven. A balanced
perspective should be taught to students. At the very least, students
should be exposed to the intelligent design perspective in addition to
the macro-evolutionary view. We do not live in the Soviet Union. We should
not propagandize students with the reigning Darwinist orthodoxy. Rather,
free inquiry is open to all perspectives. Present the facts, with various
interpretations of those facts, and then let the students form their
own opinions.

I am in substantial agreement
with the modifications given, but I find that the last modification,
Grade 12, Life Sciences #15, page 89, is too vague when "another
mechanism" is given as a cause of change.

May I suggest that ecosystems
appear designed because of ecological interdependence, and it is this
that causes ecosystems to change whenever the other given changes occur.
May I also suggest that ecosystems change when species are subtracted,
as well as when added.

As written, it appears that
ID, climate change, or new species, whenever they are inserted into ecosystems,
induce change. I'm suggesting that ecosystem changes occur because of
designed ecological interdependence responding to climate change or the
addition or subtraction of species due to migration or (micro)evolution.

What do you mean when you say
that ID, along with climate change and additional species due to migration
and evolution, bring about ecosystem change?

84 Mustafa Akyol, MS,
Political Science, Agree

I agree that the proposed Modifications
to the Draft of the Science Academic Content Standards for Ohio should
be realized. By deciding so, the State of Ohio will acquire a vanguard
position in the paradigm shift that taking in contemporary science. The
naturalistic philosophy has been masquerading itself as science itself
since the 19th century. Darwinism has been the core of this great misconception.
Now, thanks to the developments in many fields of life sciences, and
the brave scientists who had the privilege to represent them to the public
and to say that "The King is Naked", the Darwinist dogma is
on the brink of collapse. As one of the great thinkers of our age, Thomas
Kuhn, observed, such great revolutions in science realize despite a great
resistance by the establishment, but eventually they do realize. The
proposal to modify the textbooks in order to make them fit the realities
of science seems to be an important step in this process. I hope it will
realize and be an example for other states in the US and other countries
in the world.

As someone brought up in the
Christian faith, I accept, without reservation, that the Holy Scriptures
are a profound and undeniable truth which explains the creation of the
Universe and God's relationship with his creation, Mankind. Likewise,
I can not ignore emperical evidence of dinosaurs and other life now long
extinct.

Creationism, "Intelligent
Design", or what ever you choose to call it, does nothing to discount
prehistoric life. Events portrayed in religious texts and drawings from
far flung portions of the world (almost identical in theme) from peoples
who could not have had knowledge of other cultures indeed provide accounts
of cataclysmic circumstances which, in perhaps a simplistic fashion,
explain(s) the extinction of numerous species.

What Darwinian theory or thinking
can not explain or demonstrate is how something can be made from nothing
or, how something can evolve over time into something unrecognizable
from its previous form. What was recognizable as a pig 250 million years
ago remains today a pig though its form and habits have changed due to
enviornmental adaptations. Fossil evidence exists of fish, whales, sharks,
birds, snakes, mammals, etc., hundreds of millions of years old. Those
species who survived or adapted to environmental catastrophy(s)are easily
recognized from their ancestors. Some remain unchanged in any significant
manner over eons of time.

Further, what evolution can
not explain or demonstrate are the missing links in the chain of evolution
which apply not only to the human species. Evolution would have us believe
that humans evolved from apes. Modern science suggests that the DNA structure
of apes is close to that of humans. I'm certain that with DNA being the
building block of existance we could likewise find DNA similarities with
other species.

Similar does not mean the same!

Scientists and acheologists
have tried to prove or disprove scriptural accounts of history only to
find in their attempts that Biblical (even ledgendary) renditions of
events and places have a basis in fact.

Creationism and Evolution need
be discussed in the same forum with a healthy respect and scrutiny of
both. Each, in thier own way fill some gaps in our knowledge and provide
a reason for our existance. The State in its education of our children
has no right nor any reason to destroy thousands of years of established
faith based on factual historical accounts to adopt a theory established
only a hundred years or so which remains to this day unproveable.

86. Augusta Allen, MBA,
Consultant, Economic Development, Agree

87. Nelson Alonso, BS,
Student, Biochemistry, Agree

88. Susan Anderson,
MBA, Business, Music Director, Agree

I believe that the proposed
modifications to the Ohio Life Science Standards contribute to the Education
Depaartment's desire to see good science taught in our schools. I support
the proposed modifications because they honestly acknowledge that scientists
do not always agree, particularly in theories related to origins of life.
In order for Ohio's students to gain real

89. Chad Armbruster,
BS, Political Science, Self Employed, Agree

90. Mike Arnett, M.S.
Colonel, USAF, Operations Research, Agree

To dismiss the proposed modifications
out of hand very subtly teaches that some scientific dogma are exempt
from scrutiny using the Scientific Method. The State of Ohio should practice
what it preaches (teaches) and apply the steps that say, "First,
form a hypothesis. Second, test it."

I disagree with the teaching
solely of evolution in the area of life origins to the exclusion of other
theorie which does not present a balanced education when so much evidence
is out there for alternative methods. Sudden life form stata in fossil
layers, explosions of new forms in various layers and the absolute failure
of any slowly mutating variations in between are simply a few. Even solid
evolutionists are beginning to rethink their views, so why would we subject
impressionable students in "public" schools to a limited sphere
of thought?

I submit that we present all
the evidence to the students, and allow them to make up their own minds.
Isn't this what the liberal education is all about?

92. No Permission, Agree

Growing up in the public school
system and believing that everything I was taught in both high school
and college was "fact" I never heard any other view until I
was an adult. It is only a theory and yet is is taught as a truth. My
oldest son's textbook states at the beginning the differing theories
of our world, and yet the entire book is presented from an evolutionary
point of view as if it is fact. I would much prefer that these modifications
be incorporated into the Science curriculum, so that those reading are
able to decide for themselves.

Students need to be aware of
the fact that there are many theories on the origin of life and the universe.
The education systems' task ought to be, to provide students with knowledge
of a few of different theories. Until there is a scientific law of our
origins, there should be an even platform for the various theories.

94. Gary Barnes, A.B.,
Theology, Minister, Agree

It is a detriment to education
to continue the crippling of young minds.

95. Dennis Baumann,
A.B., History, Retired, Agree

The proposed modifications will
lend credibility to the standards because they more fairly represent
methods for evaluating each of the hypotheses.

In addition, the modifications
more adquately represent accepted scientific standards for evaluation.

96. Linda Beck, BA,
International Studies of Western Europe, Agree

I agree that the proposed Science
Standards seem reasonable at first glance, however they perpetuate some
fairly serious assumptions that have become commonplace in the current
culture (such as when ideas that are still technically theories are prematurely
regarded as fact). Some of these assumptions actually work against a
truly scientific approach by setting unnecessary "rules of the game" that
limit the scope of scientific inquiry or override it altogether. My fear
is that in our great efforts to "keep religion out of the science
classroom" (which I agree with wholeheartedly), we are also inadvertently
teaching that it is fine to operate under prejudice and to not question.

97. April Beck, Student,
Agree

98. No Permission, Electrician,
Technical School, Physics, Agree

99. Connie Beck, LPN,
Biology, Agree

I feel that Origin science should
teach all theories equally and evolotion not as fact but theory. Let's
be fair! Put everything on the table and let those in the classes come
to their own conclusion. What are our schools and government officials
afraid of?

100. No Permission,
B.S., Biology, Teacher, Agree

101. David Bible, M.S.,
Biology, Business Owner, Disagree

The problem with modifying the
Ohio Science Standards to include Intelligent Design is basically one
of dissembling on the part of the supporters of Intelligent Design.

Their credibility should be
seriously questioned.

First of all, they misuse the
word theory. Scientifically, theory is used as the best explanation for
the observations and data.

The Theory of Evolution based
on the observations, experiments concerning the diversity of life. It
is used to make predictions that are experimentally verified.

Teaching theories that provide
explanations for biological diversity other than in a historical note
is a waste of time.

Lamarcks theory was disproved
years ago. Mendel's work in genetics is one of the bases supporting evolution,
Paley is basically creationism/intelligent design.

Behe's theory of Intelligent
Design is simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

I would suggest that the board
members read through, Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller for an
excellent critique of Behe's ideas.

The real problem with Intelligent
Design that it has no scientific basis.

Science does not have the technology
to measure the effect of an intelligent designer. It cannot prove or
disprove an intelligent designer. This makes intelligent design a guess
rather than a theory that provides a reasonable scientific explanation
of biological diversity.

This suggested modification
would introduce, into a science class, the teaching of religion, which
is not the purpose of science class.

Materialism in science is not
a bad thing. It is all science can measure. To give anything that proposes
that there is a non-materialism, supernatural explanation is simply not
science and has no place in a science class.

Although there are people that
use science to prove there is no God, there is nothing about science
that disproves any person's religious beliefs other than the belief that
the Genesis creation story cannot be taken literally.

There is no need to object to
scientific discoveries that clearly explains biological diversity.

An interesting comment, from
a religious perspective about science, is that science only discovers
what God created. If Science has discovered evolution, there is no reason
to invoke the need of a creator or intelligent designer.

Please vote against the modifications
of the Science Standards. The modifications have nothing to do with science
and everything to do with teaching religion/non-science in a science
class.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Bible

102. Karl Birti, B.S.,
Engineering, Project Manager, Agree

I think a more balanced curriculum
should be presented to students on the topic of the origins of life.
There are many theories on this topic. One of the important aspects of
education is to develop students critical thinking skills. Present the
multiple theories on the origins of life and let the students decide
for themselves. Therefore, I support the proposed modifications to include
the theory for intelligent design.

103. No Permission,
BS, Elementary Education, Former Teacher and School Board Member, Agree

104. No Permission,
Agree,

I think this is a wonderful
idea. It would be nice for school kids to be allowed to hear all sides
and to then decide for themselves which one they want to believe in,
rather than only giving them one option.

For 20 years after serving in
the Navy and graduating from the University of Michigan in 1949, I was
a convinced and outspoken supporter of biological (macro) evolution.

In the early 70's I encountered
a startling challenge by Dr. John J. Grebe, then Director of Research
for Dow Chemical Co. Before the Texas State School Bd. he made a public
offer of $1,000 ($10,000 in today's dollars) to anyone (Bd. Member or
supporting scientist) who could offer even a single example of scientific
evidence, or mathematical analysis, sufficient to elevate (macro)evolution
to the status of scientific theory.

Like many, I set out to collect
this easy money. I truly wanted to embarrass, and put an end to, such
reckless challenges to what I had accepted as responsible science education
and respected evolutionary authorities.

Within only a few weeks of independent
examination of the classic references then (and still) cited as providing
a scientific basis for the concept, I found myself compelled to acknowledge
that Dr. Grebe's money perhaps wasn't in as much danger as I had initially
presumed.

There was no verifiable, repeatable,
empirical evidence anywhere then (or even today) as required to elevate
the fascinating concept of evolution to the compelling status of valid
'theory'. ALL the claims responsible for the on-going controversy are
but unverifiable 'interpretations', 'extrapolations' or 'deductions'
going beyond the evidence being observed. With a little clear thinking
it becomes increasingly apparent that upwards of 90% of all current disagreement
in this controversy is due more to careless, or slippery, semantics than
to actual scientific differences.

Evolutionary textbooks invariably
introduce 'science' as being based on empirical criteria (physical observations
and experimental confirmation. Unfortunately, they do NOT go on to apply
this criteria to the concept of evolution itself.

Much the same problem exists
with similarly imprecise, vague and frequently misunderstood meanings
for other key terms as 'evolution', 'religion', 'theory', etc. within
these texts.

A properly precise glossary
definition of terms -- and the faithful use of these definitions throughout
our textbooks is a reasonable and non-controversial recommendation --
and is pretty much all that is being proposed in the modifications proposed.

P.S. This $1,000 challenge remains
open (and uncollected). Until someone (teacher, board member or professor)
can cite even a single example of empirically confirmable evidence that
random shifts in gene frequency acted upon by natural selection can (or
does) cumulatively collect to produce macro-evolutionary change, it would
appear only reasonable to responsibly refrain from introducing such conjecture
as proper scientific theory to students and to the public.

David A. Bradbury 1/28/02

108. Frank Brown, BBA,
Airline Pilot and Business Owner, Agree

I FEEL THAT SCIENCE SHOULD BE
TAUGHT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT ALL THE THEORIES & HIPOTHESIS ON UNPROVEN
SUBJECTS OF IMPORTANCE WOULD BE PRESENTED & DISCUSSED.

109. No Permission,
B.S., Art Education, Principal,

110. Lee Bulls, M.A.,
Religion, Minister, Agree

111. Laurie, Calvert,
B.J., Journalism, English Teacher, Agee

I wholeheartedly agree with
the Standards because they take the bias out of the teaching of science.
At last, we look at the causes of life and it's complexity without philisophical
or religious a priori assumptions!

At the heart of this issue seems
to be the question of "integrity". Intelligent Design is as "scientific" as
what is commonly termed "evolution". Conversely, "evolution" based
on the assumption of philosphical naturalism, is no less a belief system
with religious implications, than IDT. Why should science assume philosophical
naturalism? Instead, surely it's better, (plus there must be more integrity),
in following the scientific method, without being restricted to allowing
only naturalistic explanations, and see where the evidence leads.

115. Kari Carpenter,
BA, Literature/English, Teacher at home, Agree

Today is January 24,2002. The
comment section on the ODE website is already closed in order to "collect
the data." I am disappointed, as I only just received info on this
today. But I read the suggested modifications listed on this site, and
I agree with them. Changes should have been made 20 years ago to texts
in order to include the possibility of an intelligent design theory.

It enrages me that there is
no inclusion of it as another possibility.

116. Angel Carpenter,
Housewife, Home School Mom, Disagree

As a God fearing woman and mother
I feel that these new science standards and modifications are unacceptable.
If my children were in the public school system I would not want this
being taught to my children. As a home schooling mom I would not teach
this to my children due to the fact that we are Christians and beleive
that the Lord our God created the earth and everything on it, including
the human race.

I have strongly question issue
#21 and #22 on the Life Science section for the 10th grade. Strictly
teaching evolution is becoming less and less appropriate as other equally
compelling theories such as the design hypothesis are raising dramatic
scientific questions to the Darwin, Mendel and Larmarck theories.

The State of Ohio needs to teach
all theories of our origin equally. To do otherwise is to promote one
theory over another. In promoting one theory over another, you are forcing
a belief system onto the student rather than allowing them to study all
of the theories and make their own decisions as to what they believe.
How unscientific is that course of action?

While participating in science
fair as a young student I was taught to gather ALL data equally and to
weigh the evidence without bias in order to come to an objective and
scientific conclusion. To do otherwise is to taint the data and skew
the results.

The logical and scientific approach
should allow all theories, including evolution theory and design theory,
to be taught side by side. Comparing and contrasting the theories in
an unbiased, intelligent, and logical manner. This would fit into the
Life Sciences Standards for Ohio, since evolution would still be taught
and mentioned by name right alongside design theory.

Students would be taught and
tested on both theories, and experiments could be conducted in the class
to test the theories. There is no logical reason that both theories can
not be taught to students. The theories are unique enough that students
would be able to differentiate between them.

Many well respected scientists
including Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, and Stephen Hawking have
all stated cases and/or belief in the design theory. To ignore design
theory is to throw out and ignore the experiments, thinking and teaching
of the three most brilliant minds of the 20th century.

In conclusion I would respectfully
suggest that to teach evolution alone to our students is to limit their
scientific devolopment. It will inhibit their free thought and analytical
skills. It will arrest the imagination and quest for higher thought.
That in turn will weaken the future of science as a whole by producing
an entire generation of scientists who lack the skills necessary to objectively
evaluate evidence. The greatest learning will come by presenting multiple
theories, and allowing free thought and science to thrive.

Darwin's theories and concepts
should not be given greater credibility than design hypotheses and concepts.
Design hypotheses should be taught as equally valid theories. Testing
should reflect design hypotheses to have equal validity to Darwin's and
other theories.

121. Candy Collette,
Homemaker/Clerk, Agree

I don't have a problem as a
genreal rule with our students being taught "Darwin's Theory",
only as long as the concept of creation or whatever you choose to call
it is presented as well. We need to have fair and unbiased concept put
before our kids in order for them to make an intelligent judgement. It
is no different than asking them to check out all avenues before buying
a car or making any major decesion in their lives. I strongly urge you
to make sure that "all" views are given a fair and balanced
place in our science education. No one "theory" should be required
in order for our students to graduate. That is part of the thinking and
judging process to choose for themselves what they belive. I will make
sure that all of my friends know about this and that they too will make
their voice known to you. I appreciate your ear and your time and consideration
of my opinion.

I vote AGAINST presenting ONLY
Darwinian evolution as in regard to instruction of the origin of life.
I support the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting
ALL evidence, including evidence of "design."

Darwinian evolution is not a
proven fact. It is a THEORY. Evidence for all theories, including design
should be presented in a neutral format to allow students to examine
the evidence and reach their own conclusions.

123. No Permission,
BS, International Business, Agree

The goal of education is to
help students expand their thought process. Educated people have learned
how to take various options into consideration and determine which one(s)
are worthy of furthur study. It is only right that all the options and
opinions be set forth in front of the educated student. Only in this
way will students be able to take all options into consideration and,
in so doing, learn to expand their minds.

Consistent with the newly discovered
interest in honesty in science education, the proposed modifications
emphasize presentation of ALL theories dealing with the origin and development
of life. It is highly important that students' be given an opportunity
to learn the full range of issues surrounding the teaching of biological
sciences, and that they be made aware of the bias of naturalism that
pervades current science education. Students should be taught that nothing
in science makes sense except in the light of the evidence, and that
whatever inferences are drawn from the evidence must be able to withstand
the scrutiny of logic.

126. Brenda Craig, BS,
Accounting, Accountant, Agree

127. Jeff Curran, MS,
MBA, Sr Manager, CMS Communications, Agree

The summary of modifications
was very well written. If we want our youth to be objective analysts,
teaching them to explore and evaluate all potential explanations or solutions
to a problem, then we need to allow for the modifications as stated in
the summary.

Otherwise, whether in the science
classroom or in the executive boardroom, our youth will not have been
trained to consider all the viable options and therefore be trained to
make myopic, ill-informed decisions.

128. Janet Dalton, A.S.,
Nursing, Homemaker, Agree

The Science needed to present
a more balanced perspective.

129. Arthur Dalton,
BS, Science, Manager, Agree

There needs to be a balance
in teaching the subject of our beginning. Evolution and Intelligent Design
taught together appear to a more balanced approach and more accurate.

130. Mark Darroch, BS,
Biology, Student, Agree

A growing number of published
scientific researchers have questions about some of the fundamental assertions
of Neo Darwinian theory. It seems that in the interest of achieving the
best public education possible, these reservations should at least be
allowed to be discussed.

131. Roger DeHart, BS,
Biology, Biology Teacher, Agree

132. George Detwiler,
MAT Science, General Science, Jr/Sr. High School Science and Math Teacher,
Agree

To present macroevolution as
a fact is completely nonscience. It has not been proven; it cannot be
proven. ALL data from All areas of science should be considered (including
that data that directly contradicts evolution "science" and
strongly supports the concept of intelligent design. To do otherwise
is indoctrination in a religious belief (evolution). This is specifically
prohibited by Supreme Court decisions. If this is not done, the matter
should be challenged in court and it will be found unconstitutional.

133. Kevin Dill, B.S.,
Computer Science, Computer Consultant, Agree

Having studied and applied a
logical science discipline, I am disturbed at how pieces of scientific
observation can be applied to say that the theory of macroevolution can
be construed as a proven "fact".

Many of the historic "facts" over
the last millineum have been overturned by the continual application
of true scientific method. With simple observations, we say that the
sun "rises" in the East and "sets" in the West, and
for hundreds of years, scientists asserted that the sun revolved around
the earth... and yet we know that is untrue. Scientists naturally gravitate
toward the most current theories because they are the only current explanations
for what happens around us. However, the simplest explanation is almost
never the "accurate" one.

Macroevolution has never been
proven as absolute fact by evidence in a controlled setting. Only minor
microevolution changes have been observed in a controlled study. To assert
that macroevolution is anything other than a current theory is a deception.

The scientific viewpoint continues
to change; a "truth" is never static. For hundreds of years,
scientists have scoffed at the "religious" views of creation
as unsubstantiated. Yet within the last few decades, scientists now believe
that the entire universe came into being in a single instance and cannot
explain what existed before the "Big Bang" other than a "void".

Macroevolutionists would have
us believe that we can trace all current animals back through the billions
of years to a few cells. However that is untrue. At best, we have fossil
record "snapshots" in time. While similar attributes can be
found among the snapshots, scientific evidence simply does not exist
to track the "morphing" of one animal classification into another.

The proposed Modifications should
be incorporated into the Life Science Standards to present an accurate
representation of theories as to the "origin of life". To censor
alternative theories and select only the simplest is the act of a closed,
ignorant mind... something that we are trying to avoid in Ohio education.

I support the state taking a
constitutionally neutral stand by presenting ALL evidence, including
evidence of "design."

135. Tim Dodds, BS,
Accounting, CPA, Agree

136. Nathan Duriga,
Student, Agree,

I believe that niether evolution
nor intellegent design can be considered scientifically true, since niether
is testable, observable, and repeatable according to the scientific method.
Therefore both should be considered philosophical or religious views
and be presented equally so that each person can make their own decision.

Biological evolution is not
the only possible explanation to our origin, and it is important for
children to understand this. While the teaching of evolution is certainly
appropriate, it is the exclusion of other possibilities (in particular,
the exclusion of the intelligent design theory) that I find objectionable.

138. Cherilu DuVal,
BA, Fine Arts, Homemaker, Agree

I agree with the modifications
to the proposed Science Standards, as they make the standards agree with
true science, which is based on observation and experimentation and open
to change, if the evidence so indicates. Without the modifications, the
Science Standards resemble dogma, not the words of scientists.

It is stated in the proposed
modifications that there is "no viable reason to exclude" design
as an alternative. However, for an idea to be worthy of inclusion within
the subject, that idea should have supporting evidence. In short, the
reason to include a theory should not be because there's no reason it
shouldn't, but because there IS a reason it SHOULD. There should be facts
and observations to support it. Until it does, the idea is relegated
to philosophy and theology... not science.

141 Melanie Elsey, BS,
EDucation, Teacher, agree

I have requested that the ODE
present a balanced perspective on the origin of life [biological evolution
and design] on the website of the ODE. The modifications proposed on
this website would be appropriate.

I believe that evolution and
creationism should both be taught in schools as popular theories. Wwe
should aslo teach them the skills to research the issues and decide for
themselves which theory is more likely true.

I don't believe that evolution
should be the only proposed theory of evolution. After all it is only
a theory. Please change the wording so that all theories including creation
will be included and taught as theories, not fact.

144. Pam Fallara, BS,
Medical Technology, Medical Technologist, Agree

I agree that since Darwinian
macro-evolution is still considered a theory and has not been proven
as a fact that it should not be presented as the only choice. I agree
that we see micro-evolution within a species but species to species evolution
has never been proven and as such there should be shown that there is
another theory that can be another answer...intelligent design theory.
It is just as valid and actually fits the data better. But the main issue
is that macro-evolution is a theory and not proven fact and should be
presented as such. Science should be based on truth and facts and theories
should be stated as such.

145. Michael Farley,
M.S., Biochemistry, Graduate Student, Agree

146. No Permission,
BS, Physical Therapy, Physical Therapist, Agree

147. Jeffrey Folkens,
BS, Education, Public School Teacher, Agree

To teach the theory of macro-evolution
without teaching other worthy theories, is to represent macro-evolution
as a proven fact, instead of as the theory which it is. I view macro-evolution
as a teaching of the humanism movement; and I see humanism as a religion
because it functions as a religion. To exclusively teach macro-evolution
is a violation of my family's first amendment rights, just as the exclusive
teaching of creationism would be a violation of another's rights.

148. Ronald Foster,
BS, Chemistry, Research Chemist, Agree

Clearly, the suggested modifications
to the Life Sciences indicators represent a dramatic improvement in the
objectivity of the presentation of the subject matter. These changes
simply represent better science. Regardless of an individual's theological
inclinations, there is a wealth of data about life on earth that is worthy
of study. To deliberately disregard a particular perspective would be
a significant loss to the educational process. As a professional scientist
with 20 years of industry experience, it has been my observation that
more open-mindedness is needed on many scientific issues. There is often
a temptation to accept data and explanations that agree with our prejudices,
and ignore those that disagree. It is critical that our educational system
do a better job of teaching young people to seek a thorough understanding
of the data before reaching a conclusion.

149. Barbara Foster,
BS, Business Administration, Accountant, Agree

It would be important to me
to have evolution taught as the theory that it is, rather than fact.
There are many areas of scientific study that have shown that genes can
not mutate "better". And thus, that evolution is unlikely to
have occurred. One article written in reference to this can be found
at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/morgan5.html

150. Linda Fox, BS,
History, Technology Coordinator, Disagree

I consider this a blatant attempt
to impose "creationism" on the schools of Ohio, and I object.
All students deserve to be taught SCIENCE in science classes, not religion.
There is NO ONE who promotes this point of view who is not a fundamentalist.
It is another attempt to impose a "Bible-based" curriculum
on the public schools, at taxpayer expense.

151. Beverly Fox, MS,
Library Science, Technician Librarian, Agree

Darwin's therory of evolution
includes a warning that students of evolution continue to seek proof
for his theory which would prove or disprove it. The evidence collected
to date does not support the macroevolution he described. why is this
still presented to students a fact? I have tutored students in public
school that are required to hand in worksheets with Darwinistis answers
as fact. Students are being deprived of any opportunity to question Darwin's
concept. Students are fully capable of comparing different ideas about
prehistoric events and deciding for themselves about the evidence. Isn't
this a more scientific approach - give the facts and keep an open mind
about the unknowns?

Intelligent design should also
be included. Darwinism is a theory and not a fact.

153. No Permission,
Agree

154. Phil Futoran, M.Div.,
Bible, Pastor, Agree

As you would think it ludicrous
and scientifically flawed for me to insist science be taught using only
the Bible as a textbook, I believe it is the same for you to disregard
scientific (including mathmatical probability) truths that seem to conflict
with a pet theory (evolution). Please include these resonable modifications
lest Ohio students learn, not just poor science, but faulty skills in
reason and logic.

I don't believe the proposed
Science standards and modifications are in the best interests of the
students.

156. Robert Garbe, BS,
Registered
Pharmacist, Agree,

I just RESET a half hours work
on comments because it was placed before the SUBMIT button. Please correct
this problem. I know I should read first!

Comments:

If the public is ever to have
confidence and trust in science or achedemia then they must be allowed
to view both the pros and cons of the ID and evolution theories. To censure
ID the most believed theory is an insult to laymen as well as scientists.
Truth wins only in the arena of free thought. Censureship has always
been doomed to failure or locked in repressive societies. I cant immagine
why scientists who believe in evolution can't see this point unless they
are afraid their reasoning is incomplete. Lay out the facts on this contriversial
subject and let the data answer the question of origins.

157. Leslie Gardner,
Administrative Assistant and Student, Agree

I am convinced that the modifications
to the new Science Education standards proposal are correct and a balanced
assessment of origin science theory.

Darwin's Theory is just that " a
Theory" it has not be proven was a fact. It should not be the only " Theory " of
how the earth came into being.It should be teach that other "Theories" of
the beging of time.

It seems that the State would
like to present Evolutionary Theory as fact. There is a huge lack of
evidence to support the proposed changes. Since Evolutionary Theory,
in particular Macro-evolution, lacks the support of hard physical evidence
it seems the State would be supporting theory as fact (something respected
scientists don't do) and therefore promoting a State religion which is
strictly forbidden by the Constitution of the United States of America.

The lobbying efforts of groups
like SEAO are trying to again bring the "Creation" controversy
back into the classroom. The good, educated Christians in the State of
Ohio will make sure that this not happen here.

I disagree with the life science
indicators describing evolution. I do not agree with the indicators that
suggest that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the only acceptable explanation
for the origin of life. I believe that Darwin's theory should be taught
in our schools as only what it is, a theory. Our children need to be
presented with all theories in order to have an opportunity to come to
their own conclusions.

The proposed Standards do not
represent good science in that biological macroevolution is portrayed
as a proven fact, not a theory. Biological evolution (like creationism
and design) cannot be proven to be either true or false. I am not opposed
to the teaching of evolution as a theory, but I believe that origins
science must be presented in an equal and unbiased manner.

The standards should state that
some scientists support the alternative theory of intelligent design.

I think it is sad that in our
age of "tolerance", that only one area of origins is acceptable,
especially when there is such a large population that disagrees, with
much scientific evidence provided.

170. No Permission,
MS, Education, High School Administrator, Agree

171. Amy Hess, BA, Religion/Philosophy,
Internet Programmer, Agree

I recognize that I am not a
degreed scientist, nor am I a PhD. However, I hope my religion/philosophy
degree allows me a little authority in the area of debate and logic and
philosophy in general. While I have not pursued my PhD at this point,
I have continued my education informally through private study, and have
a particluar interest in the area of Evolution vs Intelligent Design.
I appreciate the struggle the Department of Education is making in resolving
this important issue.

I would just like to send you
a note of my support regarding the Intelligent Design Network's assertion
that both Intelligent Design and Naturalistic Evolution have religious
implications. They do indeed. There are people who claim they can completely
separate "science" and "religion" and say their scientific
positions have no bearing on their faith. However, we philosophers know
that in general, all disciplines fade into each other. Math and Science,
History, Religion, Political Science and Art all affect one another.
They can not be separated into neat little boxes. The Enlightenment's
philosophies affected all these disciplines, and the disciplines affected
one another. You will see the same thing through different movements
in history.

Religion and Science are both
searches for "reality". Some areas of reality can be best understood
through faith, and some can be best understood through the scientific
method. However, there are places where the two disciplines overlap -
where science affects religion and religion affects science. Newton and
Darwin were both spiritually affected by their scientific discoveries.
One particular area where religion and science begin running into each
other and butting heads is the origins debate. In the area of origins,
there are many questions and very little you can observe directly. Scientists
are forced to INFER from the evidence and that leads to INTERPRETATION
of the evidence. And you will find that interpretation is usually based
on a persons... ahhh... philosophies.

If scientists are purely naturalistic
in their philosophical approach to science, they will find an evolutionary
explanation feasible. If the scientists do not confine themselves to
naturalism, they may interpret the very same evidence in a variety of
ways, including intelligent design. The scientific community has taught
students that Naturalism is the only acceptable philosophy for the 'real'
scientist. If in 'reality' the true explanation is indeed naturalistic,
then testing will support a naturalistic explanation. However, if in
'reality' the true explanation is not a naturalistic one, then the naturalistic
scientists are forcing their explanations to fit their philosophy, and
not necessarily to fit un-biased observation. Naturalism itself is a
philosophic viewpoint, and cannot be proved through the scientific method.
This is very important to realize.

In the origins debate, scientists
with different philosophic viewpoints can come to a variety of conclusions
based on the same evidence. Pure observable science would not produce
a variety of conclusions unless there were room for personal philosophies.

It is my opinion that students
be TOLD that there are different philosophies that affect scientific
explanations so that they can be aware of the differences between evidence
and interpretation - and so they can be aware of the philosophies that
color their own interpretations of evidence. They should know that excellent
scientists exist on both sides of the origins debate, and that the issue
of origins is not at all as cut and dried as those with a naturalistic
bias would tell them. Both sides have something valuable to add to the
debate, and both sides have true, observable science to back their conclusions.

I hope this is helpful to you.
My best wishes to you all as you work to come to a decision on this matter.

Regarding your indicators for
Grade 10, they are very unbalanced in your view of evolution, specifically,
indicators 2 and 19-24. As a former public school educator, the goal
was to provide my students with a *balanced* view of all sides, not one
that was heavily weighted to one side based on preference. Has this changed?
I would therefore urge you to either remove these indicators or add additional
indicators that also teach about creationism and a comparison between
the two approaches.

173. Beth Hill, BS,
Teacher, Agree

The State of Ohio has an obligation
to its citizens to present all theories of origin in the teaching of
life sciences. To do otherwise is to teach students WHAT to think rather
than HOW to think. By incorporating the proposed Modifications to the
Science Standards, Ohio can achieve an unbiased balance in the teaching
of origins that does not favor any one theory.

Teaching evolution as the only
possible origin of man would be disasterous. If you do, you should also
teach that the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

175. Steven Hodges,
BS, Youth Pastor, Bible, Agree

Lies that are taught about evolution's
support from science should not be taught. I do not propose creation
by Jehovah God is taught, but I do propose that we stop lying about "facts" that
have been known to be false for years in order to support a theory that
most scientist to not even support anymore.

176. Nancy Hoffman,
Operations Specialist, Agree

I believe that many theories
and ideas of creation should be offered to the students. Give me all
the options and I will be able to form an informed opinon. Give me one
theory and it is often taken as fact which it is not.

A primary, and most essential,
goal of learning is to teach students how to decipher what is factual,
from that which is theory or falsehood. The proposed Science Standards
fail to accomplish this. Not only do they present the theory of evolution
as fact, which it is clearly not, they do not present another alternative
theory. Intelligent Design is every bit as reasonable a theory as Evolution.
Indeed, many think more so. Origens science is an Historical science,
which cannot be verified in the laboratory by repeated testing. The criticism
that Intelligent Design is not acceptable as a theory because it has
not been tested and verified is thus irrelevant. The theory of evolution
has never been tested or verified either. Both theories do present a
reasonable explanation. The evidence for both theories should be presented,
not just those in support of one or the other. In any case, most Americans
want their children to be exposed to all the information. When this does
not occur public schools can open themselves up to the charge that they
are more interested in promoting an unproven theory than they are in
equipping students with the tools they need to think for themselves.

178. Michelle Houston,
BS, Education, Administrative Assistant, Agree

I strongly agree that both evolution
(as a theory) and design should be taught in the public schools.

From a purely philosophical
standpoint, there is strength for a prime or first mover - an organized,
creative, logical entity or force - that was the causal agent of dynamic
complexity. If the laws of thermodynamics are viewed as laws (as of yet
to be broken), one cannot assume scientifically that these forces operated
any differently in any other era. The law of entropy cannot be changed
from digression, or chaos, to one of building up to complexity, simply
to fit a theory. There have been no actual transitional forms of living
or once living organisms to place credence to the last statement of the
theory of evolution, and that being adaptations by organisms for survival
can give rise to a new unique and separate organism. That is not to say
there are adaptations within species that give them a survival edge,
but one does not find evidence of new separate species from this.

As well, similarities of design
between species does not mean transition of organisms to other species.
It simply means that the design is creative, worthwhile, and works. One
argument, the Operin Haldane (sorry for the misspelling) model, though
very specific, and to some degree successful in laboratory settings,
cannot be a cogent argument for a pre-existant earth climate that is
conducive to protein synthesis, to ultimately bring about the synthesis
of DNA, and later, lead to higher forms of life. So, if this fails, we
must look at Darwin's tennants of evolution as simply a theory. We, as
explorers of science, must broaden our thinking and searching to intelligently
entertain other viewpoints that can be studied, evidenced, and extrapolated
on for new horizons in origins.

182. Steve Hughes, MS,
Business, Real Estate, Agree

This language is very objective.

183. Ray Hunter, BS,
EE, Engineer, Disagree

Theory sould be taught as theory
and facts that can be proven through the scientific process should be
taught as facts.

The theory of evolution as "Darwin" and
followers have stated it is a THEORY. Not fact and cannot be proven.
In such faith based studies it is best left this way.

I believe that we were created
by our lord and father (GOD) who gave his only begotten son to save us
from sin and eternal damnation and that each and every person on this
planet should be allowed to come to their own conclusion. During my school
years I was not given the appropriate information to be allowed to make
that choice early in life. This was solely due to the fact that the only
information given was Darwinism as a standard. How can we possibly expect
any different outcome for the future generations of our country if we
don't give them the right to choose based on all of the information.
Step back and take a good look at the basis for the attack on our country
today. Is it based on Christianity or Darwinism. Thank GOD for the christian
leaders of our country. Please don't condem our country to a life lived
as the primates did. Survival of the fittest. Allow our children the
opportunity to do as God commands us to do and that is the 2nd greatest
commandment of all. ( Love your neibor as you love yourself. ) Mark 12:31

185. James Elchert,
BS, Business, Estimator, Agree

Regarding the "life science" portion
of the State of Ohio proposed science standards at the grade 10 level,
I strongly favor the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by
presenting all evidence, including evidence of "intelligent design",
to Ohio students.

Thank You.

186. Tammy Jeffrey,
BS, Photography, Digital imaging, Agree

Some might seem to think that
modifying a few little words here and there is silly and a waste of time.
But little words can change the belief structure of people. Darwin at
first, had a theory. Now it is fact. Not that it is truely fact, but
that it has been called fact for a couple of generations and has been
accepted as fact. I have no problem changing these little words to correctly
represent the truth; Darwin has a theory.

Nothing is more inappropriate
in science education than to censor information and suppress critical
thinking and inquiry. Every scientific claim, including evolution, must
welcome all challenges from alternative theories, if it wants to continue
to be held up as true, i.e., for real.

If, however, the search for
truth is no longer the primary goal of science, then parents, students,
administrators and teachers deserve to be immediately notified.

In my view, the faith of creationists
seems at least as reasonable as the faith of evolutionists. Meditate,
for example, upon the 10 billion integrated cells in the cerebral cortex
of the human brain. Darwin himself admitted drawbacks of the evolution
theory in trying to explain complex organs, such as the eye. He stated
that to believe that an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed
by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone. Furthermore,
the kidneys contain approximately 280 miles of tubes and filter 185 quarts
of water a day from the blood. The heart pumps 5,000 gallons of blood
a day. It beats about 2.5 billion tiems in an average life time. And,
all of these complex systems function together! Can evolution really
account for all of this? An honest assessment of available information
must conclude that there is powerful evidence to support the theory that
the universe and all that is in it is a designed creation.

Since when do we teach an oppinion
as a fact? If you are going to teach a theory, teach both sides of the
theory.

190. No Permission,
CEO of XXXXXXX, Ltd, Agree

191. Shaun Kapusinski,
BS, Marketing, Student, Agree

If truth is what each educated
individual is searching for, then it is truth we should be teaching.
In the recurring event of the unknown, a bias towards one theory is not
an education at all; it is an opinion. As a product of the Ohio School
Board system, I am thankful to have had teachers who were not biased
towards one opinion, but rather taught based on a foundation of truth
and recognition of any and all possible explanations for the unknown.

I believe that the proposed
Modifications improve the scientific objectivity and academic integrity
of the proposed Science Standards. The classical Darwinian viewpoint
is treated fairly as theory, origins science is accurately defined as
a historical discipline, and no attempt is made to direct students to
any religious viewpoint.

In regard to the life science,
there are many beliefs concerning the design concepts of the beginning
of life, mankind and the universe. To test children on their knowledge,
when that knowlegde,in part, is based on their beliefs that are taught
to them from birth is ludicrous. I strongly agree with Dr. John Calvert
in his position concerning the teaching of an alternative hypothesis
to evolution. This would indeed allow the State of Ohio to remain neutral.

I believe the proposed modifications
are very valuable to achieve an unbiased view of the science of origins.
The children of Ohio should be able to learn the evidence for design
as well as evidence for (macro)evolution instead of being forced to assume
that the THEORY of macroevolution is scientific fact. It is not, as the
continuing debate between well-respected scientists on both sides of
the issue shows. What better way to promote true thinking, rather than
simple memorization of the content of a book, can one have? Let them
see both sides and make up their own minds!

My 7th grade daughter just completed
the Science chapter on evolution at North Canton Middle School. I was
disappointed in the treatment of evolution as the only possible explanation
for our existence. Many of the early scientific "findings" (since
disproved or significantly modified) were used in support of the theory
as fact. It is obvious to the non-biased observer that Design Theory
is at least equally supported by the scientific evidence (if not more
so) than evolution theory. We do our students (and nation's founders)
an incredible disservice to notpresent a fair and unbiased presentation
of Design Theory as alternative theory to evolution.

198. Todd Koonce, BS,
Business, Finance, Agree

I feel that it is ok to present
evolution as a theory, but at the same time it is only fair that if evolution
is going to be presented, creation should also be presented to student,
leaving students with the option to choose which theory they will believe.

The draft standards are satisfactory
in most areas, but the proposals in the area of origins science exclusively
support the teaching of biological evolution (Darwinism). The proposed
standards are one-sided in favor of Darwinian evolution. I support the
proposed modifications by the SEAO as follows; SEAO has proposed Modifications
to the draft standards that would reflect (a) the wide gap between microevolution
(minor genetic variation) and macroevolution (descent of all life from
a single common ancestry), (b) the naturalistic (materialistic) nature
of evolutionary theory, (c) the historical (tentative, unprovable) nature
of origins science theories, and (d) intelligent design theory as a viable
scientific alternative to Darwinism.

The presentation of such a discredited
theory as Darwinian Evolution as fact is not intellectually sound. To
present it as a theory along with other theories is reasonable. To arbitrarily
exclude intelligent design theory from science education is closed-minded.

Having been trained in both
the biological sciences and theology, I can give my wholehearted support
to the recommendations. They do not espouse the teaching of any particular
form of theistic belief, and encourage the best of true scientific aspirations.
I studied biology for many years, and put many aspects of that knowledge
into practice in the lab. Darwinian ideas never had any practical impact
on the real-world biology I practiced, amounting mainly to guessing at
answers to questions of origins - questions more appropriate to the realm
of religion.

204. Mary Lattimer,
MS, Chemistry, Technical Editor, Agree

205. Philip Leiter,
BS, Photojournalism, Insurance/Journalism, Agree

I have specific comments that
I have attatched to the proposed Science Standards, however, generally
speaking I take issue with the exclusionary language concerning the issue
of origin science. I believe in intellectual honesty, and the assumption
that macroevolution theory is correct contradicts this stance.

I have actually read Darwin's
works in its entirety and he himself allowed for his own human error.
He openly questioned his "beliefs" in chapter 6. I have gone
into this in some detail in the notes attatched to the draft. Suffice
it to say, that Darwin was not so arrogant as to think his perspective
was the only possible explanation for the observations he made of the
visible world. He was open to critique. In fact, he does so in chapter
7 of Origin of Species:

"Long before having arrived
at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to
the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect
on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the
greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I
think, fatal to my theory."

Darwin believed that in the
long run fossil or physical evidence would be found to support his theory
of species mutation on a macro level. Nothing concrete has surfaced to
date. In fact, species remain "true to type" consistently.
There are no half man, half ape creatures roaming about; nor have there
been any clear and unambiguous fossil evidence suggesting this radical
step of macroevolution has occurred.

Although I believe in intelligent
design (you may have discerned this from my comments thus far), I am
not so arrogant as to think I have it all figured out. To me, the origin
of life is still a mystery as to the details.

Since I was not around several
millions of years ago, I couldn't swear to anything. I do not even have
the faith to believe that Carbon deteriorated at the same rate that it
does currently millions of years ago. Nothing is beyond imagining.

I am a father of two children
in 6th and 7th grade. I find it discouraging that Darwin's theories are
bandied about, yet neither of them have actually READ Darwin IN SCHOOL.
I have shared MY copy with them so that they know the source of these
ideas. I believe that Darwin's theories are important in the understanding
of our world. His discoveries have proven invaluable in the development
of genetic and medical research. We owe Darwin respect for preparing
the way for scientists to discover the cures for polio, smallpox and
other diseases that threatened human kind.

It is unfortunate that some
of my fellow Christians do not see this and have over-reacted to anything
having to do with the discussion of Darwinian theory. I think there are
those in the scientific community who are reactionary to challenges to "sacred" ground
within their own ranks as well.

I believe the recommended modifications
are fair and reasonable. These modifications fulfil the standards set
forth in the section entitled "scientific inquiry":

"Standard: Scientific Inquiry

Students demonstrate an understanding
of the use of the processes of scientific inquiry to ask questions, gather
and analyze information, make inferences and predictions, and create,
modify, and possibly discard some explanations. This includes students
demonstrating an understanding of how to ask valid questions that can
be investigated scientifically about the natural world and develop an
action plan to discover the answers."

Thank you for taking the time
to consider my ramblings. I hope we can together take the cause of science
to a higher level.

Philip Leiter

206. Carla Leitner,
BS, Engineering, Homeschool teacher, Agree

"Did matter create intelligence
or did intelligence create matter?" Quote from Dr. Carl F. Painter
Giving children both sides can only make them better thinkers - isn't
that what education is all about?

The changes help students to
think more critically about what is evidence, and what is interpretation
of evidence in light of a scientific theory, which may or may not be
valid. I very much agree that a distinction should be made between microevolutionary
change and macroevolutionary change. The changes also necessary help
distinguish the difference between scientific data, and inferences stemming
from a naturalistic philosophy of science. While intelligent design,
as a science, might be too "young" for direct incorporation
into science standards, Calvert and Harris are correct in stating that
it passes constitutional legitimacy for inclusion, and it at least deserves
mention in any science curriculum because of its empirical foundation
and philosophical stature as a non-naturalistic theory of origins.

211. John Malone, Student,
Disagree

I disagree that modifications
should be made in the Life Science Standards for Ohio, and this is why.
While at face value it does seem like a good idea to allow "equal
time" for competing "theories", in reality, there is only
one theory. If we look at the evidence for "Intelligent Design" (or "ID"),
there is little that actually exists. The so-called ID "theory" presupposes
that God created Earth and all life on Earth, and then tries to find
evidence that supports that theory and ignores the enormous amount of
evidence that refutes it. This fact alone makes ID theory very pseudo-scientific,
or one might even say "anti-science". It is the antithesis
of the way science works! If the "concerned citizens" of Ohio
want equal time for all possible theories of the origin of life, why
not also offer the "Muslim" version of Creation, or the Hindu,
or the Buddhist? Is it that they really want equal time, or is it that
they simply wish to introduce religion to the class room? For these reasons,
I disagree with the proposed Modifications of the Life Science Standards
of Ohio.

As a working biologist, I find
the proposed modifications of the Life Science Standards, in the Science
Academic Content Standards for Ohio, to be a breath of fresh air. Darwinian
evolution, in its modern form and as reflected in the original draft
Life Science Standards, rests on an underlying and unverifiable, philosophical
view of nature. This philosophy promotes the idea that the origin and
diversity of all life forms can be explained by purely materialistic
processes. Students should have the opportunity to understand that this
philosophical presupposition can not be proven by the methods of science.
They should also have the opportunity to understand that there are a
growing number of scientists who do not accept this particular viewpoint
and consider evidence in the natural world to infer intelligent design.
The inclusion of design into the Life Science Standards brings a degree
of neutrality into the process and allows the free and open exchange
of scientific ideas in public education.

213. Gary Martin, Senior
Computer Programmer, Agree,

I am in general agreement with
the proposed changes, except that I would prefer that the following be
completely removed because there's no empirical scientific evidence to
support them:

Grade 10, Life Sciences #19,
page 65. Know that biological evolution is a change in gene frequency
in a population over time.

Grade 10, Life Sciences #20,
page 65. Analyze how natural selection and its evolutionary consequences
provide a scientific explanation for the diversity and unity of all past
life forms as depicted in the fossil record and present life forms.

Grade 10, Life Sciences #21,
page 66. Know how life on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled
organisms about 4 billion years ago. During most of the history of the
earth, only single-celled micro-organisms existed, but once cells with
nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly complex multicellular
organisms evolved.

Modified indicator. Know that
ecosystems always change when climate changes or when one or more new
species appear as a result of migration, local evolution, or another
mechanism.

to: Modified indicator. Know
that ecosystems always change when climate changes or when one or more
new species appear as a result of migration, local genetic changes, or
another mechanism.

214. Cathy Martin, MBA,
Business, Instructor, Agree

At first, I was reluctant to
get involved in this controversy. However, upon careful reading of the
proposed modifications, I, too, believe that omitting mention of intelligent
design would subvert the goals of delivering "good science" to
our students. I feel it is the responsibility of parents and churches
to influence the "beliefs' of our students. It is the responsibility
of the schools to present viable theories regarding the beginnings of
life that our students can apply their beliefs to.

I disagree with the Life Science
indicators describing evolution that are included in the proposed Science
Standards.

217. Paul McDorman,
M.Ed., School Psychology, Chemist, Agree

Students and teachers should
be able to question the validity of evolution in the classroom. No science
should be immune from critical evaluation. Intelligent design (ID) is
a testable scientifc alternative to evolution. If it is not, then archeology,
forensic science, the Seti (Search for extraterrestial intelligence)
project could not be a part of science.

218. David McFarlane,
BA, Psychology, Information Analyst, Agree

The study of origins is exciting.
There are numerous views and theories to be considered. Let's make sure
each gets a balanced hearing. We each need to weigh the evidence and
determine what we believe is true. Give our students the evidence and
the theories.

219. Scott McGlasson,
Various Computer Work, Disargee

This issue is very simple. Creationism
/ Intelligent Design are not science, and therefore they should not be
included in science curriculi. Many courts have addressed this issue
already, and not one has determined that creationism belongs in the science
classroom.

Even creationist / ID authorities
acknowledge that they have no scientific hypothesis or theory.

Creationism could certainly
be taught in school - but it belongs in religious or philosophical studies,
not science.

There is as yet no scientific
theory of creationism or I.D. Creationism proponents advance no evidence
for any alternative to evolution. They have no scientific alternative
to evolution; they only want their personal beliefs and ideas about life
origins to be considered science without meeting the requirements of
science.

There is a very good reason
that creationists' previous efforts to include creationism in science
education have failed again and again. The reason is that creationism
is not science.

It is very important for Ohio
to retain neutrality in this issue, and in order to do that, the intelligent
design theory should be included in curriculum. Neither macroevolution
nor intelligent design can be proven, so it is reasonable to include
both as valid hypotheses.

The standards should also reflect
the difference between microevolution, which is not disputed, and macroevolution.
Students need to be aware of the difference between the two.

220. Ann McGrath, AB,
Math, Elementary Education, Educator, Agree

It is extremely important that
both views be taught and tautht as to scientic opinions, not proven fact.

It's important that Ohio's science
education distinguish between demonstrated fact and scientific theory.
With regard to origins science, all views should be put forth as theory
since none can be adequately tested by modern science (and haven't been).
The observation of micro-evolution should not be taken as full validation
of macro-evolution which hasn't been observed, though it is one plausible
theory. Other theories, specifically those centered around intelligent
design, should not be ruled out but rather presented as alternate views
that, like macro-evolution, also can't be tested for validation.

222. Kathleen Merwin,
BA, Art, Music, Music Teacher, Agree

Our students need to understand
that the theory of evolution is just that ... not fact, but a theory
as to the origins of man and the universe. I believe it would be a much
greater challenge to the critical thinking skills of students to present
to them more than one possible theory for consideration.

I think the modifications are
very fair, and do not seek to eliminate the teaching of the THEORY of
macroevolution, but to inform students of other theories, as well. How
very biased to teach ONLY macroevolution! Why should students be kept
unaware of alternatives?

225. Ruth Miller, BS,
Retired general science teacher, Agree

Dear Ms. Anderson,

I would like to comment on the
proposed standards for science. Life science standard for 10th grade
number 21 begins with the words, "know life on earth is thought
to have begun..." followed by statements supporting the view of
evolution. No mention is made of the views many intelligent, educated
scientists hold....that intelligent design was/is a part of the process.
To set forth evolution as the only theory to be taught in our schools
would seriously compromise the proficiency test. Students who do not
hold to this theory would be forced to answer in the "right" way
in order to pass the test??? If scientific inquiry is to be a goal for
educators, why not present all theories, with supporting evidence so
that students may come to their own conclusion?

Teaching evolution as the only
viable solution to creation is not only "discriminatory", it
is also scientifically faulty. Ohio's education elite seem to be leaning
toward teaching evolution as an already established fact, instead of
the theory it is, whether they admit it or not.

227. Ronald Miller,
BA, Chemistry, Retired, Agree

It is inconceivable to me, having
been trained in the scientific method, that only one viewpoint relating
to the issue of "man's creation" is currently being suggested
by those appointed to select information for our Ohio scientific textbooks.
To completely ignore the possibility of an Intellectual Design Author
as a creator of "Man and our Universe" does not speak highly
for those given responsibility for approving our scientific texts. Why
not give our young students the right to chose between these two Theories?

228. No Permission,
BS, Industrial management, housewife, Agree

We continue to let our children
down regarding their schooling. We change history to be P.C. "politcally
correct", allow them to spell words "as they see fit",
and solve math problems "close enough". Let us not teach Evolution
as fact when there is no supporting evidence. It is very frustrating
for me to watch the "dummbing down of America children".

Score one for truth and honesty.
In the arena of origins science, the proposed modifications level the
playing field for all competing hypotheses. Finally, you can allow all
legitimate scientific inquiries into the classroom and allow the students
to see the facts and decide for themselves. Let science point where it
may point, and if it points to a god, so be it--is that a crime? Shall
we cover up truth and indoctrinate lies in the minds of students in the
name of the establishment clause of our constitution? I really hope not.
Please allow the THEORY of evolution to duke it out with competing theories
in the classroom. The indoctrination of any one philosophy, including
the philosophy of Naturalism, will certainly fail the constitutional
test. Truth deserves a fighting chance.

231. Rober Moak, Systems
Analyst, Agree

All theories about the origins
of life should be presented for study. None of these theories should
be taught as factual, as none of them are actually scientific verifiable
information. Since none of these can be proven, it requires a faith to
believe them, thus they all constitute a religious belief not a scientific
fact.

232. No Permission,
BS, Biomedical Engineering, Editor, Agree

Any standard or modification
that would require teaching Intelligent Design is a farce. It's like
forcing educators to teach the least stupid alternative to the Atomic
Theory or the Theory of Gravity. There's not enough time in a normal
child's education to include failed, misguided, and fairy-tale science.We
have a hard enough time teaching them what the experts believe are the
best explanations in biology, geology, astronmy, and the rest of the
sciences, along with the scientific method. Let's not clutter it up with
god, eugenics, astrology, and palm reading.

233. Todd Muller, BA,
History, Community Development, Agree,

These are very reasonable modifications.
Not to include them does not seem consistent with a pursuit of scientific
knowledge.

The theory of evolution is strictly
an opinion of Darwin and has not been proven to be true. How can you
justify forcing children to learn that theory, when it is not entirely
factual, but merely a choice of belief. It is my understanding that how
we have come to be, is a personal choice of religion or belief. Religion
is suppose to be separate from the state. Therefore, unless you are willing
to teach all beliefs, one should not be singled out and forced to be
learned.

Science in an of itself is not
absolute. Scientific study is an investigation into the understanding
of observed facts, a hypothesis is then either supported or not supported
by what is observed.

Because of the limitations of
science, the need for statements about these limitations should be included
in all scientific study.

The best I have found came from
Bob Jones University Press 1993:

1) Science deals only with the
physical universe.
2) Science is unable to prove a universal negative.
3) Science is unable to make value judgments.
4) Science is unable to make moral judgments.
5) Science is unable to produce final answers.
6) Science is fallible and pronce to error.
7) Science is often forced to deal with models rather than with reality.
8) Science is bound by certain ordained restriction.
9) Science is affected by the scientists' prejudices.
10) Science is a useful tool.

In an age where diversity and
tolerance reign, it is amazing to me that the Creation, Intelligent Design
Hypothesis is feared by the public educators. Their fear is geniune.
The data that has been collected and even manipulated does not support
the hypothesis of evolution as the beginning of life.

Blinding prejudices do not have
any place in the area of education or in the search for truth.

236 Ellen Myers, MA,
History, Teacher, Agree

The history of science shows
that scientific revolutions have occurred in the past. The intelligent
design paradigm may well cause a scientific revolution now. Our students
should learn to be flexible about the current paradigm of origins.

237. Todd Norquist,
BA, Psychology, Theater, Marketing, Agree

Single lane, one way dogmatism
stifles curiousity. It's a teen-ager's job to be turned-on by debate
and controversy. Teachers should be happy that such a controversy is
brewing. Students deserve the most up-to-date presentation of the scientific
landsape--including this controversy.

238. Kyle Nowakowski,
Student, Agree

These new modifications will
stimulate new, uncharted, inquiry into scientific discoveries regardless
of religion, race, or ethic standings. Let us explore all possibilities.

239. Larissa Nygren,
BS, English, Marketing Manager, Disagree

I don't object to traditional
scientific evolution theories being taught, but I think they should be
taught as THEORIES, not as proven fact. They have not, in fact, been
proven. It's fine to introduce children to the theory as a possibility,
but should not be taught as truth, thereby ruling out personal religious
beliefs.

I think it is wrong to even
suggest that a therory is absolute truth. Therefore evolution as an assumption
should not be something we teach in any school much less public schools.
I think it should be presented as a theory along with other valid theories
as well.

241. No Permission,
BA, Communications, Marketing Director, Agree

I support the state taking a
constitutionally neutral stand by presenting all evidence, including
evidence of "design."

242. Carla Owens, MA,
Counseling, Career Counselor, Agree

I fully agree with the new proposals
- it is strange that evolution has historically been taught as "fact" rather
than just one of many theories when in fact many scientists are still
debating many of the laws of science, including the origins of man. Evolution
does not even attempt to fully explain the origins of space, time, the
big-bang, etc... - who set these in place? Creative Design may be the
only logical answer!

This "theory" of Creative
Design should not offend anyones particular religious views as the finger
is not pointed at anyone religion but rather some sort of supreme being
setting all of creation into motion!

Students are given the opportunity
to hear many different views in their classes - ie - history, literature,
psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Why should science class be any
different? Students need to be taught to be independent thinkers across
all curriculum.

243. No Permission,
BS, Engineering, Web Commerce Developer, Disagree

244. James Pardee, MS,
Business Admin, Public Accountant, Disagree

Don't let the Ohio board of
education become the second laughing stock (after Kansas)because of this
ridiculous idea of intelligent design, etc. One county school board in
Florida was voted in to make the same changes as Kansas and Ohio and
was recalled by majority vote after the courts said their actions were
unconstitutional.

245. Quentin Patch,
BS, Industrial Engineering, Sales engineer, Agree

The modifications represent
a minimal move toward the current middle position regarding origins.
Without these small modifications, students will be left in the dark
regarding cutting arguments against the plausibility of evolutionism.
Continued censoring of up-to-date information will not benefit students
of any persuasion in their future education and career pursuits.

246. No Permission,
MA, Biblical Studies, Writer, Agree

247. No Permission,
BS, ME, Mechanical Engineer, Agree

248. No Permission,
MM, Music, Musician, Agree

To present evolution as fact
and all other as fiction is to teach poor science methods. It is best
to present the opinions and theories available and allow students to
cpme to their own conclusions. Teachers are already going to present
their biased views to students whether or not those theories are based
on solid science, but why are they afraid to teach opposing views?

Science can't be studied properly
unless all views are freely discussed without prejudice. Discussions
of intelligent design must be introduced.

251. Roger Ransom, BA,
Public School teacher, Agree

I disagree with the Life Science
Standards for Ohio and the stance that the committee has taken to make
the absurd claim that evolution is the only acceptable explain for the
origin of life. To be truly academic or educational, all possibilities
for the origin of life must be presented to Ohio students. No true scientist
had ever or could ever make the claim that evolution is a fact. Their
statements are only presuppositions or theories. That is the way the
committee should leave it. The Modifications should be incorporated in
the Life Science Standards for Ohio, since it allows for a fair inclusion
for other orign possibilities.

I heartily agree with the proposed
Modifications to the Science Standards. I encourage the members of
the Ohio Board of Education to take a courageous stand for unbiased, evidence-based
science education.

Perhaps history will record
that it was in Ohio that the first steps were taken in exorcising the
naturalistic philosophical bias that is so deeply embedded in biological sciences
education in American public schools.

I have been studying this issue
for years. I was taught in public school that evolution was a "fact" and
as a result concluded that all religion was simply weak-minded men's
way of coping. This resulted in my becoming an atheist. It was not until
I was challenged to look at the historical evidence for Jesus that I
began to question the "fact" of evolution. I now believe that
the teaching of evolution as a fact is the most serious problem facing
our society. If the State of Ohio adopts the new science standards without
the proposed modifications then it will be in violation of the establishment
clause of the constitution. The scientific work in support of ID by Wells,
Behe, Dembski, Bradley, Meyer and others can not be ignored. The very
definition of science needs to be modified. It should be: the search
for knowledge based upon empirical evidence. However, the definition
should not contain the clause "of only natural causes." This
clause has been tacitly included and contains the underlying philosophy
of naturalism which is the antithesis of religion and requires that there
is, and can be, no god. Science should follow wherever the evidence leads.
ID theorists conclude that living organisms and the biosphere in which
we live show specified complexity which appear to be the result of design.
(No religion is attributed.) Evolutionists conclude that chance and natural
selection account for all of the complexity that we see today. Students
should be allowed to discern which theory best fits the evidence. They
should understand the implications and the limitations of both equally.
Teachers should not be allowed to force one view over the other. One
last point. ID is NOT creation science. Creation science is directly
derived from the bible. I do not support the teaching of CS in public
schools. I would be happy to assist in the adoption of the proposed modifications
in any way possible.

At the level of popular media,
the assumption is made that the scientific data supporting evolution
supports a wide range of sociological and philosophical positions, affecting
the meaning of human life, the basis for ethics, etc.

The proposed modification here
are CRITICAL to equipping students to evaluate such claims for themselves.
They do no more than make the teaching of evolution move closer to what
objective scientific research reveals to those working in the field.

As a graduate of one of the
top engineering schools in the country (RPI), I find it appalling that
the science standards should be so dogmatic on the issue of life origins
and development when there is no consensus in the scientific community
as to the processes which resulted in life as we know it. The inclusion
of intelligent design theory would be a welcome - indeed necessary -
counter-balance to the repudiated theories of time, chance, and natural
selection.

Evolution is a theory not a
fact. Because of this other theories need introduced to let the child/children
draw conclusions based on all the material they have been presented.

261. Chris Sams, Student,
Agree

I remember being in high school...I
wish we would have been taught the objective views in science...that
is part of science, gathering un-biased facts and making a decision for
ourself. If we withhold facts an/or views, isn't that a breakdown of
what science and the unviverse as we understand it is all about?

It is a well known fact that
the table has turned with the historic facts regarding evolution. I have
discovered that many more scientists are finding more flaws than ever
before in this theory. It is amazing that in any other subject matter,
one is to be fair in hearing and discussing both or various possibilities
or views. When it comes to science it is considered unacceptable to teach
anything else but evolution. I call this censorship.

The 1st proposed change is simply
an attempt to eliminate the word "evolution" from the lesson,
resulting in scientific inaccuracy. It is actually the changes in life
forms through geologic time that have influenced environmental change.
For example, there was little or no oxygen in the atmosphere at the time
life formed. Anaerobic metabolic processes carried out early photosynthesis.
It was not until roughly 2.3 billion years ago that Organisms called
cyanobacteria oxygenated the atmosphere (incidentally causing their own
extinction!). Clearly, the evolution of life, not its mere presence,
was the driving force behind these changes. To leave out this important
component of the lesson renders it virtually useless.

The 2nd proposed change is again,
simply, the removal of the word "evolution". The remainder
of this point is mere obfuscation. While it is true that Linnaean classification
was developed prior to the theory of evolution, and was not originally
evolutionary in practice, modern taxonomists have modified the system
to reflect evolutionary relationships. One need only look at any college-level
biology textbook to discover that Linnaean taxonomy is now, in practice,
evolutionary.

The proponents of this modification
are also not "up" on their understanding of phylogenetic systematics.
Cladistic methodology has generated a more refined evolution-based taxonomy
called "phylogenetic taxonomy", which identifies groups based
on common ancestry, rather than overall similarity used in Linnaean-based
taxonomies. It is far from troublesome and is currently gaining wide
support in some fields of systematics. (The Dawkins quote is a disingenuous
non sequitur. Our inability to identify specific ancestors does not entail
that we cannot classify organisms based on relationship, or know the
degree of relatedness between different organisms. For example, you can
know who your second cousin is even if you do not have any pictures of
your great-grandparents and do not know where they are buried.)

The 3rd proposed modification
is accurate however stated, both in the current draft indicator and as
modified. But the second sentence in the modified indicator is unnecessary.
The motivation behind this change is pure creationism: creationists have
long insisted on a spurious distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution
because common ancestry would violate the creationists' position on created "kinds." According
to creationists, kinds were created with built-in barriers that prevent
descent with modification resulting in speciation. For example, according
to creationists, whales are a created kind, and not the result of descent
with modification from early, land-dwelling mammals, as evolutionists
assert based on study of the fossil record. However, creationists have
never presented scientific models of exactly what defines each kind and
what the barrier to speciation is. (This is just one of the many reasons
why creationism is not a science!)

The 4th proposed modification
involves semantics. Here the word "may" is unnecessarily inserted
to cast doubt on one of the most well- established theories in science.
This modification reflects confusion about the scientific definition
of a "theory." But, as the National Academy of Science explains, "Ideas
are not referred to as 'theories' in science unless they are supported
by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely.
When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held
with a very high degree of confidence". Thus, insertion of the word
may is unnecessary, and is intended only to cast doubt about the status
of evolution in the minds of students.

Methodological naturalism is
incorrectly defined in this proposed modification. It actually means
only that scientists are restricted to natural explanations in explaining
the natural world, and the principle applies to all of science, including
physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, and biology. There is therefore
absolutely no real debate over whether methodological naturalism should
be applied to the "historical sciences" because it is a basic
principle of all sciences. Of course, even sciences not usually thought
of as "historical" such as physics and chemistry have historical
aspects. For example, because gravity causes objects to fall to the ground
today, we assume gravity has always caused objects to fall to the ground.
This is both empirical and historical, and the same is true of evolutionary
biology.

The intent of Modification #5
is to remove any reference to the age of the earth, and to qualify or
make the status of evolution as a science seem more tentative to students.
Both are bad for students' understanding of science. The assertion in
the explanation that "these estimated times very greatly" is
simply false; scientists have dated not only rocks on earth, but meteorites
and moon rocks as well. Meteorites and the most ancient rocks date between
4.5 billion and 4.6 billion years. The oldest known earth rocks are 3.7
to 3.9 billion years old, while the oldest minerals date between 4.1
and 4.2 billion years. The age of the earth is therefore known to be
approximately 4.5 billion years.

regarding Modification #6: Historical
knowledge about the development and acceptance of scientific theories
is an integral part of quality science education. However, given the
amount of information children today are expected to learn, and the limited
time in which to learn it, it is important to keep the most relevant,
the most up-to-date, and the most scientifically valuable information
in the curriculum. The inclusion of Paley and Behe in the list of scientific
developments is intended to lend an air of legitimacy to intelligent
design as a viable scientific field of study. However, intelligent design
has yet to be demonstrated as viable by its advocates. For example, Paley
argued that the adaptations of the eyes of fish and the eyes of land
vertebrates to their respective environments was evidence for the work
of an intelligent designer. "What plainer manifestation of design
can there be than this instance?" he asked. This question was also
considered by Darwin, who proposed: "Reason tells me, that if numerous
gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect
can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is
certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations
be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations
should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then
the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed
by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." Darwin
did not "overshadow" Paley as the proposed change states; he
overturned his ideas, providing a better explanation for what we see
in nature.

Including Paley in the curriculum
might be useful from a historical perspective, but including Behe's idea
of "irreducible complexity" would serve no purpose in science
education. Paley represented, in his day, the consensus view. And this
would be good for students to know. But Behe does not; his ideas have
been rejected by the knowledgable scientific community. Our responsibility
is to give students the best information science has to offer. Currently,
that does not include irreducible complexity and intelligent design.

As for "Intelligent Design":
this unscientific concept is currently accepted by only a very small
number of scientists who have yet to publish research results in any
peer- reviewed scientific journal. The vast majority of scientists do
not regard intelligent design as a "viable scientific theory that
presents an opposing viewpoint that is deserving of consideration." Science
is a process of learning about the natural world. The introduction of
supernatural causes removes the lesson from the realm of science. (A
more appropriate place in education for intelligent design theory might
be a humanities course or a comparative religions course, since intelligent
design is not a scientific view.) The exclusion of intelligent design
is therefore not censorship. Scientists have examined the views of the
Intelligent Design proponents and have not found them useful for understanding
the natural world. Science curricula for K-12 schools are developed around
the consensus of the scientific community, and this consensus does not
include intelligent design. If it ever enters into the consensus, then
it will doubtless trickle down to the pre-college level much as have
other scientific views.

A parallel situation existed
twenty years ago regarding a proposal that "creation science" -
a view that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that living
things appeared suddenly in their present form - was supportable through
science and thus should be taught in public schools. Scientists examined
and rejected these claims, and creation science is not included in the
curriculum because the evidence against such claims is overwhelming.
Indeed, the scientific procedure requires the testing of alternate hypotheses,
but once such hypotheses are disproved, there is no point in constantly
reiterating them.

Until intelligent design advocates
can make a case for their ideas that is at least as strong as the evolutionary
view, they will remain on the fringes of science with such notions as
a young earth.

Evolutionary theory, like all
science, is "open to questions and possible modification",
and in fact, new developments occur daily. But the modifications in evolutionary
theory - like those from all other science - must come from the application
of the discovery of natural causes and effects, not supernatural ones.
Once we begin assuming miracles occur in our study of the natural world,
we stop doing science.

Claims of "viewpoint discrimination" are
inappropriate, an example of a legal concept applied outside of its proper
setting. Scientific concepts and theories are not "viewpoints" in
the sense that the courts have used this term. "Viewpoints" are
social, political, religious, and artistic opinions, rather than logically
and empirically derived scientific theories and concepts. Whether the
Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes perpetual motion machines is not
a "viewpoint". A political or religious opinion may not, under
the free speech clause of the First Amendment, be repressed, but that
does not mean that proponents of perpetual motion machines deserve to
have their views taught in science classes.

What we teach in science class
is the concepts and theories that have stood the test of time. Evolution
has. Intelligent Design and creation science have not.

There are other problems with
the proposed modifications, as I'm certain other interested parties will
demonstrate. Suffice it to say that the proposed modifications are clearly
not scientific in nature, regardless of what their authors have said.
Evolutionary theory is solid science; the reason no other scientific
viewpoints are presently taught in the classroom is that there are NO
such viewpoints. Evolutionary theory is the only scientific explanation
for the development of life on earth; arguments from "intelligent
design", "creation science", and so forth are clearly
religious in their foundations, and should not be taught in science classrooms.
They are not valid science in any way, shape or form.

It is time to end the double
standard that says that evolution is science but intelligent design is
religion. Neither are totally scientific nor religious, but there is
a mixture of ideology in both. I believe that all sides of this issue
need to be exposed to students. Evolutionism is an apologetic for a number
of religious beliefs, including materialism, secularism, atheism, agnosticism,
Marxism, communism, fascism, and humanism, all of which exhibit a perverse
hatred toward people of faith in the Bible. To teach evolution as fact
is to slap the face of the student of faith who disagrees, but who has
no recourse but to answer his teacher to get a good grade. It one of
the worst forms of bigotry exhibited by schools who pride themselves
in being open minded.

Teach science straight up. No
smoke and mirrors, please. Also, teach about pure materialistic naturalism,
and intelligent design. Then allow the students (and parents, as appropriate),
to make an informed decision.

In order for an education to
be comprehensive, I feel that all sides of an argument or theory should
be presented as theory so that the resulting debate and discovery will
not be one sided or manipulated in a predetermined direction. The competing
design theories for example concerning the origins of life, should both/all
be presented. If only one is used then the education of the students
is restricted and free, independent thinking is not encouraged.

I agree with the concerns articulated
in the Modifications, and I strongly urge that they be implemented. The
Modifications remove the pervasive but erroneous assumption that science
has a proven naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. The Modifications
help to reflect the true status of scientific knowledge about the origin
of life, including those areas about which science is ignorant.

I am quite concerned that our
Science Standards include reference to, and discussion of, these key
concepts: 1) origins science is a historical science, and as such it
must be approached without pre-existing bias in order to arrive at an
explanation consistent with all of the evidence; 2) in spite of half
a century of research into the origin of the first biologically active
molecules by chemical evolution, the process remains a mystery (rather
than a foregone conclusion, as implied in the current version of the
Standards); and 3) natural selection may explain why certain members
of existing populations survive and others die out, but it has yet to
propose a mechanism for complexity-building at the biomolecular or gross
anatomical level, and it has no explanation for the presence and activity
of information (which is something other than matter and energy) in biochemical
systems. The Modifications address most of these issues; the current
Standards do not.

The writers of the current Standards
have also neglected to mention the growing body of significant scientific
evidence which supports a design hypothesis. The assumption of naturalism
pervades these Standards, and the Modifications are essential and necessary
for disclosing this assumption and revealing the evidence which challenges
Darwinian processes. The inclusion of Intelligent Design theory is necessary
so that students can be exposed to and understand the competing hypothesis
for the origin of life and its diversity, and so that they are aware
of why a growing body of scientists are considering Intelligent Design
as a viable explanation for origins.

273. No Permission,
Student, Molecular and Cellular biology, Agree

274. Paul Smith, HS,
Computer Programmer, Agree

It's high time we did something
*actual* about keeping orthodoxies and sacred cows out of science. Unfortunately,
we have unwittingly let Darwinism become one of these sacred cows, and
in the process, we have forgotten that our primary goal should be to
teach our children to think, rather than teaching them *what* to think.

These modifications are a good
first step towards achieving a truly evidence-based science curriculum,
which is how science should have been taught in the first place.

The design concepts in the Life
Science curriculum is too narrow banded. Darwinism is a theory and should
be taught as a theory, as well as considering other theories and ideas
on this matter. This subject matter should not be limited to one thought
when all teachings in this area are only theories. Please consider expanding
this Science standard.

276. Judy Smith, BS,
Registered Pharmacist, Agree

Science is about inquiry and
by implication that would include all theories about origins. One needs
all the information available to be able to effectively examine the evidence.
The controversy about origins should be taught in schools. Children should
not be co-opted into believing in one particular worldview or another.
They should be allowed to examine the evidence available and given the
tools to pursue their examination further if they wish. School is not
about indoctrination to either side of this issue; it is about giving
students the ability to think critically, not merely parrot one point
of view or the other. Judy Smith, RPH

I agree that it is a form of
viewpoint discrimination and state censorship to exclude design as an
alternative to the theory of evolution. Members of the scientific community
have given convincing arguments for considering the theory of design
as a possible explanation for the origins of life on earth. It should
be included in the information we give to our students. I don't see how
it adversely affects our students to clarify to them that Darwinian Evolution
is one possible explanation for the origin of life on earth and that
there are scientists that have studied the same information, but have
come up with a different explanation, intelligent design. That's what
real science is all about! I do, however, think that we cause great damage
to the reputation of science by restricting thought and the flow of information
and by not telling our students the whole story.

The portions of the proposed
Modifications that reference the origins of the earth take into account
only one very narrow view, namely Darwinian evolution theory (note, evolution
is one of many theories and is not fact). I am referring specifically
to the Grade 10 proposed modifications, items #2 and #19-24. A true science
curriculum would embrace the discovery, teaching, and discussion of multiple
theories of the origins of earth and of life. By restricting the classroom
discussion and presentation to only one of many theories, you are in
essence proposing that the scientific method be thown out in favor of
those who would like to present only one theory. This is not only a disservice
to the students, but also is counter to true scientific methods. I am
a scientist by schooling, trade, and profession, and only when diverse
theories are presented does true scientific learning occur. Limiting
the discussions to one theory is, in essence, opinion and indoctrination,
not scientific teaching or scientific discovery. I am very disappointed
that the Ohio Board would consider such a restriction under the guise
of scientific instruction.

The portions of the proposed
Modifications that reference the origins of the earth take into account
only one very narrow view, namely Darwinian evolution theory (note, evolution
is one of many theories and is not fact). I am referring specifically
to the Grade 10 proposed modifications, items #2 and #19-24. A true science
curriculum would embrace the discovery, teaching, and discussion of multiple
theories of the origins of earth and of life. By restricting the classroom
discussion and presentation to only one of many theories, you are in
essence proposing that the scientific method be thown out in favor of
those who would like to present only one theory. This is not only a disservice
to the students, but also is counter to true scientific methods. I am
a scientist by schooling, trade, and profession, and only when diverse
theories are presented does true scientific learning occur. Limiting
the discussions to one theory is, in essence, opinion and indoctrination,
not scientific teaching or scientific discovery. I am very disappointed
that the Ohio Board would consider such a restriction under the guise
of scientific instruction.

Just a reminder that not a single
verifiable transition from one species to another has ever been found.
For verification of this fact, contact Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist
at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world's largest
fossil collection, - sixty million specimens.

Albert Einstein acknowledged
that "the harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all systematic thinking and acting
of human beings is utterly insignificant reflection."

As I understand it the rule
of public system is to enable our populace to determine the how to govern
this democratic republic. The act of governing requires the ability to
make choices based on known facts. I therefore believe the choice of
origins should be made available to our students in state sponsored science
classes. Beings it is that our government is historically and heavily
influenced on the laws of God. I therefore believe God or the creation
argument should be given no less than 50% of the class time for instruction.

284. Jonathan Stull,
Road Worker for State of Ohio, High School, Disagree

No matter how you name it Intelligent
Design is Creationism. Intelligent Design assumes, without evidence,
the existence of a supreme being. I would question how one would even
teach such a concept. The entire theory seems to be based on incredulity
of complex lifeforms. Incredulity is not a theory. If you want equal
time for competing theories at least come up with a competative theory.
Would you complain about the Heliocentric theories lack of competition?
How about the fact that we have but one element chart. Perhaps we should
bring back the theory of the four elements earth, fire, air and water.
To allow creationism into our school systems would be an embarrasment
to Ohio. Please don't let this happen.

287. Dan Swires, BA,
Theology, Electronics Technician, Agree

288. Renee Szabo, Agree

Scientific evidence for "intelligent
design" provides a practical and legal balance to Darwinism evolution
without any bias toward any one particular theistic belief.

289. William Taber,
BS, Microbiology, Microbiologist, disagree

I am extremely discouraged and
disgusted to see your organization use the word "Science" in
your organiztation's name. Apparently, you seem to fear even the word "evolution",
while you have failed to even recognize what the word actually means.

The modifications to the proposed
science standards are reasonable and necessary to teach students about
evolutionary theory with complete understanding. In fact, if many of
these modifications are not implemented, students will be taught to uncritically
accept information based on authority, not scientific principles. The
science classroom should be a place where students learn to form conclusions
based on full access to data and information, not partial data that supports
a predetermined assumption about the world.

Who could argue that giving
students a full understanding of both microevolution and macroevolution
is "bad science"? This includes, of course, the knowledge that
the former has been observed and the latter is assumed to be true based
on interpretation of other evidence.

Who could argue that giving
students a complete understanding of the assumptions that underlie a
theory, before being asked to embrace that theory, is "bad science"?
This includes realizing that evolutionary theory includes the assumption
of naturalistic explanations (naturalism), not as a conclusion based
on evidence, but as a philosophy regardless of the evidence.

Please base your final decision
on what makes sense to teach kids, not what is politically correct to
please one particular organization or another. Students should be able
to trust that educators will present an intellectually honest version
of something as important as evolutionary theory.

291. David Thrush, MS,
Biology, Teacher, Disagree

The following are not my comments
but express the nature of science and why intelligent design has no place
in the curriculum.

(begin quote)

> The report (on the front
page of the Plain Dealer of January 15) that several members of the State
Board of Education wanted the draft science standards to be rewritten
to present evolution as "an assumption, not fact" signals the
arrival in Ohio of a nationwide controversy. The news item went on to
say that these board members>wanted alternative explanations such
as 'intelligent design' or ID to >be also included in the standards.

> This point of view raises
some very deep and interesting issues about exactly what science is and
is not, and what properly belongs within its curriculum. Suppose we apply
that point of view to other areas of science. Is the theory of gravity
an assumption or a fact?

>Are Newton's laws of motion
an assumption or a fact? Is Einstein's theory of relativity an assumption
or a fact?

> If by 'fact' we mean those
things that are unquestioningly accepted as true or can be directly experienced
via the senses, then all these theories fail the test. They are all models
that have been constructed by people to explain certain phenomena. None
of them can be directly tested. They each have limitations in what they
can explain. But they are all unequivocally accepted into the scientific
canon because they meet the criteria for inclusion.

> For something to be considered
a part of science and to be included in the science curriculum, it does
not have to be a 'fact' or even true. If we look back in time, we see
that almost everything that we once thought to be true in science is
now considered false. But all those ideas are still considered to be
a part of science. Newton's laws of motion (which are taught to students
in middle and high schools and in college) are, even now, not considered
to be true in the sense of never having been contradicted by experiment.
But these laws are highly regarded, considered to be science, and given
pride of place in the science curriculum.

> So what makes a theory
or model scientific and why does ID not meet the criteria for inclusion
in the science standards as a viable, alternative, and scientific explanation
for the origins of life? The first reason is that one of the operational
rules for a theory to be considered scientific is that it be naturalistic.
In other words, it cannot appeal to supernatural forces and inscrutable
agents. Since ID theories do so, it does not fit into the scientific
canon.

>Although this criterion
is essentially a philosophical position and can be challenged as such,
there are sound practical reasons for invoking it. The reason that science
has made such enormous progress in the past is that it has, even when
confronted with seemingly intractable problems, refused to give in to
the temptation to invoke a non-physical cause. Scientists are quite used
to living with serious discrepancies in their theories for decades so
the difficulties that

>evolution theory currently
has in explaining some phenomena is not unusual. For example, it was
known for over fifty years that the motion of the planet Uranus could
not be completely explained using Newton's laws of motion. The peculiar
behavior of the planet Mercury was again a problem for Newtonian mechanics
for about seventy years.

>In each of these cases,
scientists did not feel obligated to argue that the actions of a God
was responsible for any of these serious and very long-lasting discrepancies.
They instead looked for naturalistic alternatives, and eventually found
solutions that satisfied them. These new explanations contributed to
science's progress and considerably expanded its reach. Thus a scientific
explanation does much more than explain something that was previously
inexplicable. It also necessarily must point to new areas for investigation,
with concrete and specific predictions for what to look for and where.
ID does not really do this.

>There is no doubt that many
people (including scientists) are not fully convinced that evolution
is the correct explanation for how living things came to be. Many people
may well believe that ID is the true explanation and they are perfectly
entitled to do so. But the science curriculum is not the repository for
everything that is considered true, any more than the history curriculum
is the repository for each and every event that happened in the past.
To be in a specific curriculum, that discipline's criteria for inclusion
must be met. In the case of science, two of the criteria are that it
be naturalistic and predictive. Intelligent design does not meet those
criteria and so is not included in the scientific curriculum.

Mano Singham, Associate Director

University Center for Innovations
in Teaching and Education (UCITE)
Department of Physics Rockefeller 222 A Case Western Reserve University

Leaving out other theories of
creation is a form of discrimination. This is hardly in line with tolerance
and diversity. This would be forcing conformity.

294. No Permission,
Supply chain information & EDI Coordinator, Agree

Intelligent design may be a
new concept to you, but it is an idea that has been around since antiquity.
Simply stated, design theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence,
that some features of living things may be designed - by a mind or some
form of intelligence. The basic premise is that life is much too complex
and subtle to have come about without the active intervention of an external
agent or deity. Design theory by itself makes no claim about the nature
of the designer.

I do agree that the "Intelligent
Design" Theory should be taught in conjunction with the "Evolution" Theory
in the school system. Evolution should be taught as a theroy, not as
an absolute. Both theories should be presented in the classromm in as
much as an objective manner as possible. This is TRUE eductation, presentation
of theories and allowing the student to decide what they belive is plausible
or not plausible.

296. Lisa Wagler, Associate
Education, Teacher, Agree

I think it is important for
Ohio to remain neutral in presenting science theories in order to bring
balance.

Not to fairly address any alternatives
to evolution in origin science is equal to brainwashing our children.
If not given all the options available to be able to think and decide
for themselves which theory is most viable to their way of thinking,
children will be short changed and and eventually insulted that they
could not be trusted with this information.

I urge Ohio to adopt Standards
which define science as a search for TRUTH in natural phenomenon. Restricting
science to search only for NATURALISTIC explanations is inherently bad
science, since it excudes truth if truth is outside the naturalistic
boundary. Note that if the true explanation is within the bonds of naturalistic
expanations, it is completely acceptable, therefore no harm can possibly
occur from this broadening the search for explanations to seek truth.

301. Kathy Wells, MBA,
Finance, Investment Manager, Agree

If the public schools in Akron
start teaching evolution, I will yank my two children out of the pulic
system so fast, the ODE's collective head will spin.

302. No Permission,
Homemaker and homeschool mom, Agree

303. Jerry Whatman,
Truck driver, Disagree

Evolution is not 'only a theory'.
Evolution is an observed fact. The 'theory' fo evolution is the method
used to explain the observed facts.

Same for heliocentrism.

304. David Wilcox, Property
Specialist for Allstate Ins., Agree

I imagion the power of the knowledge
that would lead children to ask--"If i'm designed, maybe I do have
a purpose"-- and go on from there and find It.

Before 1900, the scientific
method was employed to observe nature, gather data, and formulate models
and theories that were consistent with all data. Mach's Criterion [Only
those propositions should be employed in physical theory from which statements
about observable phenomena can be induced, and verified] was formulated
to guide scientists in applying the scientific method and validate theories
on the nature of the laws of physics. In other words no assumptions or
propositions can be incorporated in scientific theories that can not
be tested in some way, furthermore no assumptions or propositions can
be incorporated in science if they have been experimentally proven false.
These and other logical rules and principles for scientific propositions
were employed in science in order to exclude from science the biased
notions of philosophers found in mythology which are in obvious disagreement
with the real world. It forbids the use of any assumption or subtheory
proven false in the development of a new scientific theory.

Despite claims of objectivity,
much of modern science is actually established by consensus instead of
scientific criteria. For a majority of science professors, science has
become a belief system they cannot validate scientifically but nevertheless
teach to unsuspecting students. Mach's Criterion is no longer printed
in science texts because the foundation of some science is inconsistent
with experimental facts, and some parts of modern theory contradict other
parts of the same theory.

A Worldview presents principles
on the nature of the world we life in. A worldview is a belief system
with underlying assumptions about nature and presents a theory of physical
objects and their relationship. A worldview should be consistent with
experiments and theory to pass logical tests for truth. In teaching modern
science the role of the underlying worldview is often not defined or
alluded to. All scientific theories are built upon certain assumptions,
axioms and idealizations of nature. If the development of science is
logical, which it usually is, then the conclusions science reaches from
using these idealizations, remain consistent with the underlying worldview
that originally espouses them. Most textbooks do not concern themselves
with the underlying worldview for modern science. Francis Schaeffer [
A Christian Manifesto (Crossway Books,. Westchester IL. 1981, p18 ] points
out that our society is dominated by a worldview based upon the idea
that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its
present form by impersonal chance. This is the ancient Helenistic worldview
known as atomism,

4) Worldview Principles on the
Nature of Things. (Pg 96 Gr 11 # 3)

Science should be based on three
unprovable principles. The premise of reality, causality and unity (
Stanley Beck, Bioscience, Oct., 1982 ) Science has been based on the
belief that the world is real and the human mind is capable of knowing
its real nature. The law of cause and effect is that all observable phenomena
are the effects of previous underling measurable causes. The third basic
scientific premise is that nature is unified, we live in one world.

While all scientists subscribe
to the scientific method, not all theories or laws have been developed
through its rigorous application. Many theories are not founded on observed
measurable repeatable behavior. In Historical Science which studies the
past, one really cannot use the scientific method. One cannot observe
past phenomena as a basis for drawing conclusions. In these circumstance
one can only use one's theories of past phenomena ( which may or may
not be true) as a basis for one's conclusions.

6) What is Truth

(Pg 58 Gr 6 # 5) (Pg 58 Gr 8
# 3)

For thousands of years Western
thought had regarded truth as objective, absolute, and unchanging. But
Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1832) undercut this view by treating truth
as a changing process. According to the Hegelian dialectic, in each age
there is a central idea, called the thesis, and that Truth is an ever-changing,
ever-upward (evolving) process.

7) Evolution

(Pg 65 Gr 10 # 19) (Pg 65 Gr
10 # 20)

Strictly speaking, evolution
is simply a change in the frequency with which specific genes occur in
a population. Fallacy of equivocation, using the word evolution in two
different ways:

1) a change in gene frequency
with time

2) the theory that all living
organisms have a single common ancestor, which itself came from non-living
matter,

8) Fossils

(Pg 38 Gr 3 # 5)

Most kinds of fossils are extremely
rare. After all, to become a fossil, the species not only must exist,
but individuals also must die in places where conditions are right for
preservation, In other words, the skeleton must be buried in sediments
with preservative properties before scavengers or weathering can destroy
it. Then only a few of those places will undergo erosion or uplifting
that exposes the long buried remains. Thus Fossilization requires rapid
burial and cementing agents.

The geologic column and the
position of fossils within the geologic column provide no proof of amoeba-to-man
evolution. All the animal phyla, including chordate fish, are now known
as fossils in the Cambrian System. No ancestral forms can be found for
the protozoans, arthropods, brachipods, mollusks, bryzoans, coelenterates,
sponges, annelids, echinodems or chordates. These phyla appear in the
fossil record fully formed and distinct, in better agreement with the
concept of "Multiple, abrupt beginning", than with the notion
of "descent from a common ancestor" (evolution).

10) Science and Bias (Quotable
Quote)

(Pg 83 Gr 10 # 3), (Pg 84 Gr
9 # 8), (Pg 96 Gr 12 # 1)

At this point it is necessary
to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something
that textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are
not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would
like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the
world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches
and wild guesses. As Individuals they often come to believe something
to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince
somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in their own ideas and a
desire for acceptance by their peers, a scientist will labor for years
knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment
after experiment whose result they hope will support their position.
Boyce, Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp.
17-18.

Science… is not so much concerned
with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as "Truth" is
what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment
in time... [ Scientists ] are not really receptive or not really open-minded
to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking
some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm-
in this case neo-Darwinism- so it is very difficult for people who are
pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing.. They
find it hard to [ get ] research grants; they'll find it hard to get
their research published; they'll find it very hard." Prof. Evelleen
Richards, Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia, commenting
on dogmatism from the establishment even against a non-Darwinian (neo-Lamarkian)
theory on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV program Lateline,
9 October 1998.

11) Experiments on Stratification

(Pg 39 Gr 3 # 10), (Pg 60 Gr
10 # 1), (Pg 88 Gr 10 # 12)

Numerous fluviatile and marine
sediments, as well as sedimentary rocks observed in nature , showing
the microstratified aspect are given such names as: laminae, varves,
etc. These types of lamination are attributed to successive deposits
of layers, usually by superposition of seasonal or annual beds.Recently,
however, geologists have discovered that laminae and beds form quickly
on floodplains of rivers during floods, in shallow marine areas during
storms, and in deep water by turbidity currents. The evidence of rapid
sedimentation is now so easily recognized that geologists observing a
strata system these days often ask where to insert the "missing
time" of which the strata do not show sedimentary evidence."

It has now been demonstrated
that rapidly-moving, sediment-laden fluids can result in an abundance
of laminations and/or layers. They can be forme in lab experiments, by
hurricanes, and were even formed by catastrophic mud flows associated
with the eruption of Mount St. Helens. A better interpretation of past
deposits would stem from acceptance of rapid intense geologic processes.

In 1669 Wilken Stello formulated
his principle of superposition, which requires that superposed strata
in sedimentary rocks form from successive layers of sediments. The principle
of continuity asserts that each layer has the same age at any point.
These principles apply a relative chronology to superposed strata. The
correlation between strata and time allowed Charles Lyell to establish
the first geologic column in 1830.

One of the founders of sedimentology
Johanne Walther, formulated his law of correlation of facies, from examination
of sediments in the Gulf of Naples. Walthers Law, which gave rise to
the modern sequential analysis of facies, is not in agreement with the
principles of superposition and continuity.Ref: [ Walther Johannes, 1885,
die Gesteinbildende Kalkalgen des Golfes von Naepel und die Entstehung
Strukturloser. Kalke, Geol. Ges. Zeitschr. Deutsch., V. 37 pp. 329-357.,
1893-1894. "Einleitung in die Geologie als Historische Wissenschaft:
Jena, Verlag, Gustav Fischer, 3 vols. ]

In the 1970s and 80s Glomar
Challenger borings into the Pacific Ocean bottom showed that Walther's
discovery of superposed and juxtaposed facies also applied to deep sea
sediments. Walther's observations can in fact be shown to be a natural
consequence of sedimentary mechanics.

His law as well of the observation
of the 1965 Bijou-Creek floodwater deposits , suggests that the contradiction
might be due to the belief that superposed strata are the same as successive
layers.Ref: [ E.D. McKee, Flood Deposits, Bijou-Creek, Colorado, 1965,
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37.3, 1967, pp 820-851.]

Other previous researchers on
this subject include:

Rubin D.M. and McCulloch D.S.,
1980 Single and superposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay
and flume observations, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 26:207-231.

Guy Berthault's experiments
on lamination and those performed at the Colorado State University in
large flumes showed that stratification under a continuous supply of
hetergeneous sand particles can result from: segregation for lamination,
non-uniform flow for graded beds, and desiccation for bedding plane partings.
The tests also found that stratification can form parallel to a slope
exceeding an angle of 30 degrees and thus can invalidate the principle
of original horizontally. Inclined strata are not necessarily, therefore,
the result of subsidence or uplift.

Ref: [ G. Berthault, Sedimentation
of a Hetrogranular mixture. Experimental lamination in still and running
water, C.R.Acad. Sc., Paris T., 306, Serie II, pp. 717-724, 1988] and
[P.Julien, Y. Lan, G. Berthault, Experiments on stratification of hetereogeneous
sand mixtures, Bull. Soc. Geol. France, 1993, T. 164., pp. 649-660.]The
experiments could provide a new model for explaining the formation of
stratified rocksIn the flume experiments superposed strata were always
distinct from successive layers, and neither the principle of superposition
nor the principle of continuity applied to the strata. Due to the mechanical
nature of segregation and the presence of sediments and non-uniform flow
in oceans and rivers being the same factors producing strata formation
in the flume, the experiment results might have some application to the
genesis of stratified rocks.

In summary, the experiments
cast doubt upon the use of the principles of superposition and continuity
for interpreting the origin of sedimentary rocks. The experimental fact
that a continuous supply of sediment produces stratified deposits should
dissipate the illusion that superposed strata result from an intermittent
succession of layers taking millions of years to deposit. Experiments
in stratification directed by Guy Berthault and conducted in the hydraulics
laboratory of the Colorado State University have shown that the principles
of stratigraphy, such as superposition and continuity, do not apply when
there is a water current. As most sedimentary rock strata were originally
formed in oceans subject to variable currents, the principles could not
have applied to any significant degree. The original seventeenth century
authors of these stratigraphic principles believed them to have a global
application. In consequence they were used to establish the geologic
column and the geologic time-scale. Little, if any testing by experiments
was performed by these Historical Geologists. The lab experiments by
Berthault, confirmed by observations of sedimentologists in the field,
demonstrate that the principles apply only locally and in calm waters
for fine sediments. Where there is a current, which is generally the
case, strata do no form successively but laterally and vertically at
the same time. The geological time-scale is shown, therefore to have
been constructed on invalid data. In consequence, the principles must
be abandoned as a general law because they only apply under specific
and very limited conditions. Thus fundamental error in calculating geological
time.

Berthault's stratification experimental
results were presented at the following conferences:

French National Congress of
Sedimentology 1993

International Congress of Sedimentology
1994

European Congress of Sedimentology
1995

Powders and Grains Conference-
USA 1997

Independent confirmation of
some of Berthault's experimental work is published in the following:
Maske, H.A., Havlin, S., King, P.R. and Stanley, H.E. 1997. Spontaneous stratification
in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379-382.

I strongly disagree with the
life science indicators describing evolution. Science standards need
to provide for balanced instruction in the area of life origins. The
state of Ohio needs to implement a policy that conforms to a constitutional
obligation to be neutral

in matters of religion and non-religion.
The proposed wording would in reality be censoring scientific evidence
of design. This would most certainly violate the criteria already established
by the U.S. Supreme Court [Epperson v. Arkansas].

Senate Bill 1, passed earlier
this year by the Ohio General Assembly, was enacted as part of the state's
response to the DeRolph court case on school funding. S.B. 1 calls for
new state standards in several academic areas. New language arts and
math standards are being considered this fall by the State Board of Education,
and new science and social studies standards are slated for passage by
the end of 2002.

Ohio's current science standards
are contained in the 1996 document Science: Ohio's Model Competency-Based
Program.(1) The Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation rated state academic standards last year,(2) and
Ohio received a "B" in science. Fordham said the document is
a "fine basis for learning but could well use a companion document
devoted to detail...." In other words, the performance objectives
are good, but Fordham felt that the list should be more extensive and
more explicit.

The study complimented Ohio
for the initiation of "quantitative study" in grade 3, and
for the progression/elaboration of material in the upper grades. Fordham
was also pleased with a strong emphasis on the history of science. The
main criticism by Fordham was the lack of specifics in such areas as
the laws of science, descriptions of certain natural phenomena, and the
use of mathematical analysis.

A second Fordham report, Good
Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States (2000)(3) was
less kind to Ohio. It gave an "F" to Ohio's standards in the
area of biological evolution, saying: "Evolution [is] treated here
as if it were not proper conversation in polite company. The E-word is
avoided and the evolutionary process occupies a near-negligible part
of an extensive document."

Indeed, there is some validity
to these claims. The "E-word" is used only once in Ohio's Standards;
the term in which it appears is "stellar evolution," which
of course has nothing to do with biological evolution. The Ohio document
describes numerous evolutionary concepts, but different words are used
- for example, "change over time," "natural selection," "punctuated
equilibrium," "speciation," "change phenomena," "historical
development," and "diversity at different periods of geologic
time." In Good Science, Bad Science, avoidance of the E-word was
sufficient to warrant an "F" rating for Ohio, even though the
content is there. (We might note that the Ohio Standards also avoid the "D-word";
the concept of design is not mentioned at all.)

Good Science, Bad Science was
a highly biased report with a very narrow scope. Its purpose was to discredit
states that failed to give dogmatic and exclusive support to the teaching
of macroevolution (Darwinism) in science classes. That's what Fordham's "F" rating
really reflects - that Ohio's evolution standards are not deemed strong
enough in their support of the theory. Good Science, Bad Science is one
reason the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) decided to strengthen its
coverage of biological evolution in the new science standards.

Ohio's Science Advisory Committee(4) has
been meeting since April. This group of about 35 people consists mostly
of high school and college science teachers/professors, representatives
of some scientific and educational organizations, and a few people from
the business community. The Advisory Committee put together some general
principles for the standards writing process, and they composed the "Front
Matter" (introductory portion) of the document. They also developed
a set of "organizers" (major topics, themes, or strands) for
the Writing Team to follow. The Advisory Committee discussed how biological
evolution should be treated in the Standards, but no one on the Committee
served as a proponent for a balanced, unbiased treatment of the subject.
Not surprisingly, their recommendation was that only biological evolution
should be taught in the area of origins science. (Origins science is
the study of the origin and development/diversity of life on earth.)

Ohio's Science Standards Writing
Team(5) has been meeting
since June, and a draft set of "indicators" has been completed.
(Indicators are statements of what a student should know and be able
to do.) The Writing Team consists of about 35 people from around the
state; most of the members are elementary, secondary, and post-secondary
science teachers/professors. Three team members are from industry; one
of these is Bob Lattimer, a research chemist.

Almost everyone knows that origins
science is currently taught in public schools from a purely evolutionary
(Darwinian) perspective. Only evidence in support of evolution is presented,
and alternatives (such as creationism or intelligent design) are either
not covered or else are marginalized. Our goal has been to work for fair
and reasonable origins science standards that are appropriate for all
Ohioans. We have consulted with John Calvert of the Intelligent Design
Network(6) in this effort.

Overall, we would leave intact
most of the current language in the Biological Evolution indicators.
Minor changes are needed, however, to ensure that biological evolution
is portrayed as a theory - not proven fact. We are not opposed to the
teaching of evolution; we just want origins science to be presented in
a fair, reasonable, and unbiased manner. Specifically, we believe the
following topics should be addressed in the standards:

1. Microevolution/macroevolution.
Biological evolution is defined in the standards as "a change in
gene frequency in a population over time." Evolutionary theory teaches
that microevolution (minor genetic variation) over long periods of time
results in macroevolution (descent with modification from a single common
ancestry). Microevolution is well-supported experimentally and is accepted
by nearly all scientists. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is what
we usually think of when we hear the word "evolution." This
is "Darwinian evolution"; it cannot be verified by experiment
and is controversial. The standards should reflect the wide gap between
microevolution and macroevolution.

2. Naturalism. Naturalism is
the principle that all phenomena in nature must have a natural (material
or physical) explanation. The assumption of naturalism specifically excludes
any form of design (including creationism) as an explanation for the
origin and diversity of life. The standards should state that biological
evolution is a naturalistic theory that intentionally excludes design
from consideration. Many scientists feel that naturalism should not be
invoked as a guiding principle in origins science, since it restricts
the objectivity of investigations. If naturalism is invoked as a principle,
this should be explained to teachers and students.

3. Historical science. Most
sciences, including chemistry and physics, are empirical (or experimental)
in nature; theories can be tested by experiments in the laboratory and/or
by observations of the world. Some disciplines, like origins science,
are historical in nature; that is, they attempt to explain events and
processes that have already taken place in the distant past. Theories
in historical sciences cannot be verified experimentally, so the explanations
are always tentative. Biological evolution (like creationism and design)
cannot be proven to be either true or false. The historical nature of
evolution/design theory should be explained in the standards.

4. Intelligent design. Design
theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some features
of living things may be designed - by a mind or some form of intelligence.
Design theory by itself makes no claim about the nature of the designer.
Design theory is compatible with belief in God and the Bible, but it
does not require adherence to any particular faith or doctrine. (One
might also say that naturalistic evolution, while not a "religion," is
consistent with atheism.) The standards should state that some scientists
support the alternative theory of intelligent design. There is no valid
reason, legal or scientific, why design should not be considered as a
possible explanation in origins science.

Unfortunately, the Science Standards
Writing Team has thus far rejected language that would include any of
these considerations in the standards. The indicators as they now stand
exclusively support evolutionary dogma. Although the Life Sciences subgroup
of the Writing Team has discussed the above four points, none of these
ideas has been incorporated into the document. The current draft indicators
in biological evolution are at present neither fair nor reasonable. All
of the new K-12 science indicators (draft version) have been posted on
the web by the Department of Education (ODE) for public review and comment.(7)

Evolution seems to be in a special
category when it comes to science standards. Two other controversial
topics that are covered in the new Ohio Standards are environmentalism
and cosmology (study of the origin and development of the universe).
ODE should be commended for their coverage of both environmentalism and
cosmology. The draft indicators in both of these areas are "fair
and reasonable," showing sensitivity to different viewpoints. It
is not entirely clear why the Writing Team chose to be dogmatic on evolution,
but not environmentalism or cosmology.

A question that might be asked
regarding origins science standards is this: "What about creation
science? Why shouldn't the alternative of creationism be included in
the standards?" Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have already
ruled that creation science cannot be taught in public school classes.
The courts' reasoning, whether we agree with it or not, is that creation
science is "religious" since it seeks to find scientific evidence
supporting a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus it is pointless
to try to inject creationist language into state-adopted science standards,
since that battle has already been fought - and won by the evolutionists.
While it is true that both design theory and naturalistic evolution have
religious implications, one concept is no more "religious" than
the other.

Another point is this. Even
if creationist language could be incorporated into standards, one would
still have to decide which kind of creationism should be covered. Committed
people of faith who reject naturalistic evolution are divided into at
least four major groups: (1) "young earth" creationists who
believe the Genesis account refers to normal (24 hour) days; (2) "old
earth" creationists who interpret the Genesis "days" as
long "ages" or "eras," (3) "framework" creationists
who believe Genesis provides only a "literary framework" for
describing God's work; and (4) "theistic evolutionists" who
believe God used and directed evolutionary processes over time.

Intelligent design seeks to
avoid these controversies by focusing on scientific, rather than theological,
arguments. Intelligent design is a good scientific alternative to evolution,
and "creationists" with differing perspectives have found that
they can unite under the design banner and present a unified front to
the science and education establishment. It has been relatively easy
for evolutionists to defeat creation science initiatives in U.S. courts
and school boards. The establishment is finding it to be much more difficult
to defeat the design hypothesis, which is clearly a viable scientific
paradigm, and not a religious concept.

Where do Americans stand on
the issue of origins? A February (2001) Gallup poll showed that 57% of
Americans favor the theory of creationism, while only 33% favor the theory
of evolution.(8) In the
same poll, 82% of respondents said that God was involved in the creation/development
of human beings. Only 35% of those polled said that the scientific evidence
supports the theory of evolution. (We note that Gallup polls have not
framed their questions in terms of "intelligent design.")

Most of the biological evolution
indicators in the new Ohio Standards are at the 10th grade level, which
means the subject will be covered on the new Ohio Graduation Test. Thus,
unless the situation changes, students must learn and be tested on the
theory of evolution before they can graduate from high school. This will
be the law, even though a large majority of Americans reject the theory
of evolution.

One of the basic reference books
used by the Department of Education in revising the science standards
is Science for All Americans (1989).(9) Not
surprisingly, despite its title, Science for All Americans is very dogmatic
with regard to the teaching of biological evolution. This simply reflects
the strong control that a segment of the U.S. science and education establishment
has in the teaching of origins science. It is clear that we have our
work cut out for us in Ohio. We must work to mobilize public opinion
in favor of science standards that will be fair and reasonable for all
Ohioans, not just the small percentage that believe in Darwin's theory
of evolution.

These are the current draft
indicators (December 1, 2001) relating to "origins science" (the
study of the origin and development/diversity of life on earth). The
indicators as they now stand consider biological evolution as the only
possible explanation in origins science. While the teaching of evolution
is certainly appropriate, it is the exclusion of other possibilities
that many Ohioans will find objectionable.

Overall, most of the current
language describing biological evolution can remain intact. Minor changes
are needed, however, to ensure that (Darwinian) evolution is portrayed
as a theory - not proven fact.

Modifications are suggested
that add language to (a) distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution,
(b) state that evolution is a naturalistic theory, (c) make a distinction
between empirical and historical sciences, and (d) include the alternative
theory of intelligent design.Note: The page listed is where the indicator
may be found on the "www.edohio.org/science_comment" website.

Know that biological classifications
are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into
a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities which reflect
their evolutionary relationships. Species is the most fundamental unit
of classification.

Modified indicator.

Know that biological classifications
are based on how organisms are related. Know that organisms are classified
into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities in form
and/or function. Know that species is the most fundamental unit of classification.

Explanation.

The Linnaean classification
system (which is still used to a large extent) was developed during the
18th century, long before the advent of Darwinian evolution. Thus it
is inaccurate to say that classifications of organisms "reflect
their evolutionary relationships."

It is true that some modern
(cladistic) methods seek to develop classifications based on evolutionary
relationships. Cladistic taxonomy is troublesome in practice, however.
For example, Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 284) says "it
is difficult to pin down the precise identity of ancestors, and there
is a good case for not even trying to do so."

Know that biological evolution
is a change in gene frequency in a population over time.

Modified indicator.

Know that biological evolution
may be defined as a change in gene frequency in a population over time.
Know that evolutionary theory posits that microevolution (minor genetic
variation within a population) over long periods of time results in macroevolution
(descent with modification from a single common ancestry).

Explanation.

The statement that biological
evolution is a "change in gene frequency" requires clarification.
A change in gene frequency would seem to be microevolution, the normal
genetic variation within a population. Macroevolution, or Darwinian evolution,
would require modification of existing genes (by forming new combinations
of existing genes or by mutation of genes). The Standards need to make
a distinction between microevolution, which is well-supported experimentally,
and macroevolution, which is ultimately based on similarities rather
than experimentation.

Analyze how natural selection
and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for
the diversity and unity of all past life forms as depicted in the fossil
record and present life forms.

Modified indicator.

Analyze how natural selection
and its evolutionary consequences may explain the diversity and unity
of all past life forms as depicted in the fossil record and present life
forms. Know that natural selection does not explain the origin of life
itself, and that biological evolution is a naturalistic theory that specifically
excludes design from consideration.

Explanation.

The word "may" is
added to emphasize that evolution is a theory. Students should know that
natural selection can only operate after life has originated. Students
should also know that a basic assumption of evolutionary theory is methodological
naturalism, the principle that design (teleology) plays no role in the
origin or diversity of life. Naturalism is a reasonable assumption for
empirical sciences like chemistry and physics. There is considerable
debate, however, as to whether or not naturalism should be employed in
historical sciences like cosmology and origins science. Since biological
evolution assumes naturalism as a precondition, this needs to be disclosed
and explained to students.

Know how life on earth is thought
to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago.
During most of the history of the earth, only single-celled micro-organisms
existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago,
increasingly complex multicellular organisms evolved.

Modified indicator.

Know that according to evolutionary
theory, life on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled
organisms shortly after the time when the earth first became habitable.
During most of the history of the earth, only single-celled micro-organisms
existed, but once cells with nuclei developed, increasingly complex multicellular
organisms developed. Know that evolutionary biology, as a historical
science, forms a tentative reconstruction of events and processes that
have already taken place.

Explanation.

The original indicator assumes
that (Darwinian) evolution occurred. The modified wording makes it clear
that evolution is a theory for the development of life on earth. This
is the only indicator in the origins science area that includes estimated
dates for events or processes in the distant past. Since these estimated
times vary greatly, it seems best not to insert a specific number. In
place of a date, one can state that life is believed to have arisen shortly
after the earth became habitable.

Origins science (the study of
the origin and development/diversity of life on earth) is a historical
discipline. As such, in the words of Ernst Mayr ("Darwin's Influence
on Modern Thought," Scientific American, July 2000, p. 80): "Evolutionary
biology, in contrast with chemistry and physics, is a historical science
- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have
already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques
for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs
a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the
particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

Theories that are proposed in
a historical science are always tentative, and alternative explanations
are possible.It may be noted that the origin of life and its subsequent
development are really separate subjects. That is, before any evolution
can occur, life must originate. The origin of life remains a mystery.
For example, Michael Denton (Nature's Destiny, 1998, p. 293) says "despite
an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this [the beginning of
life] occurred, and the event remains as enigmatic as ever." The
indicator really doesn't speculate on how life began. However, a discussion
of abiogenesis (or "chemical evolution") is typically included
under the umbrella of evolutionary theory, so one may presume that this
topic might be included here.

Know historical scientific developments
that occurred in evolutionary thought, including alternative theories
that have been considered (e.g., Paley, Darwin, Lamarck, Mendel, Behe).

Explanation.

A discussion of historical developments
in origins science should include a discussion of theories that have
competed with Darwinian evolution (such as special creation, panspermia,
and intelligent design). Numerous advocates for intelligent design could
be considered for inclusion in the indicator, but William Paley and Michael
Behe are perhaps the most logical. Paley's book Natural Theology (1802)
gave a classic presentation of the argument for design. His writings
were later overshadowed by Darwin and his followers, but Paley's arguments
(and those of his successors) are still worthy of consideration. Michael
Behe is a founder of the modern design movement. His book Darwin's Black
Box (1996) put forth the argument that numerous biological systems are "irreducibly
complex," indicating they have been designed by some form of intelligence.

Understand that natural selection
leads to organisms that are well suited for survival in particular environments.
Chance alone can result in the persistence of some heritable characteristics
having no survival or reproductive advantage or disadvantage for the
organism. When an environment changes, the survival value of some inherited
characteristics may change.

Notes.

No modification is suggested
for this indicator, since it basically describes microevolution (which
is well accepted). In any case, the validity of natural selection is
not the issue. The issue is whether natural selection is a sufficient
mechanism to enact macroevolutionary change. The indicator does not consider
this topic.

Current draft indicator.
Grade 10, Life Sciences #24, page 66.

Understand that natural selection
provides the following mechanism for evolution: some variation in heritable
characteristics exists within every species, some of these characteristics
give individuals an advantage over others in surviving and reproducing,
and the advantaged offspring, in turn, are more likely than others to
survive and reproduce. The proportion of individuals that have advantageous
characteristics will increase.

Notes.

Again no modification is suggested,
since this basically describes microevolution. None of the original indicators
states the Darwinian argument that natural selection over long periods
time results in macroevolution.

New indicator. Grade
10, Life Sciences (insert after #24, page 66).

Know that some scientists support
the theory of intelligent design, which postulates that the influence
of some form of intelligence is a viable alternative explanation for
both the origin and diversity of life. Compare and contrast the evidence
that supports the design hypothesis with the evidence that supports the
evolutionary hypothesis.

Explanation.

None of the original Life Sciences
indicators mentions alternatives to evolutionary theory. Modern intelligent
design (or just "design") is a viable scientific theory that
presents an opposing viewpoint that is deserving of consideration. There
are several reasons why the design hypothesis should be included in the
Life Sciences standards:

The design hypothesis is consistent
with the definition of science given in the Front Matter to the Standards,
namely: "Science is an active process of investigating, learning,
and thinking about the natural world." There is nothing in this
definition that would preclude design as a possible explanation in origins
science.

Censoring the evidence for design
is contrary to the scientific method, which requires that opposing hypotheses
be tested against each other. The consideration of alternative theories
is consistent with the spirit of the indicator (Grade 10, Scientific
Ways of Knowing #3) that says "scientists may disagree about explanations
of phenomena, about interpretation of data, or about the value of rival
theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism,
and open communication are integral to the process of science." Also,
another indicator (Grade 12, Scientific Ways of Knowing #2) states that "evaluation
of scientific investigations includes … suggesting alternative explanations
for the same observations."Censoring evidence for design suggests
that naturalism has been employed as an underlying assumption in the
Standards. Excluding design because of naturalism in effect makes evolutionary
theory immune to scientific criticism. The use of the naturalistic assumption
to protect evolutionary theory violates the spirit of the indicator (Grade
9, Scientific Ways of Knowing #4) that states "scientific explanations … must
be open to questions and possible modification."State censorship
of design is inconsistent with the neutrality required by the establishment
clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also amounts
to a form of viewpoint discrimination that is not permitted under the
First Amendment speech clause. There is no viable legal reason to exclude
design as an alternative.

Reasons for inclusion of design
are presented in more detail in Teaching Origins Science in Public Schools:
Memorandum and Opinion, by John Calvert and William Harris, 2001.

This indicator seems to appear
out of context. The word "other" implies that the indicator
is making a contrast with something else, probably "natural selection" (Grade
10, Life Sciences #23 and #24). A minor wording change is recommended
to help the indicator stand better on its own.

Current draft indicator.
Grade 12, Life Sciences # 12, page 88.

Know how the evolution of life
has changed the physical world over geological time.

Modified indicator.

Know how the presence
of life has changed the physical world over geological time.

Explanation.

These indicators are very similar
in nature, and both assume that (Darwinian) evolution has occurred. It
is the presence of life, not its evolution, that has changed the physical
earth over time.

Know that ecosystems always
change when climate changes or when one or more new species appear as
a result of migration or local evolution.

Modified indicator.

Know that ecosystems always
change when climate changes or when one or more new species appear as
a result of migration, local evolution, or another mechanism.

Explanation.

This indicator assumes that
migration and evolution are the only mechanisms for the appearance of
new species in an ecosystem. The modified wording allows for other mechanisms
to be considered (such as intelligent design).